I'm just trying to say that you cannot use creation as evidence for a creator without acknowledging that you have no basis for this outside of the bible declaring it so. If you don't believe that the bible saying something simply makes it literally true your argument immediately falls apart.
- Status
I'm just trying to say that you cannot use creation as evidence for a creator without acknowledging that you have no basis for this outside of the bible declaring it so. If you don't believe that the bible saying something simply makes it literally true your argument immediately falls apart.
colonelciller
Senior member
- Sep 29, 2012
- 915
- 0
- 0
we cannot to declare with any measure of sanity that we have rights granted by gods without concrete evidence that any such gods exist.
since there is no concrete evidence for any gods of any scientific nature, all who believe in rights granted by the gods are certifiably insane.
since there is no concrete evidence for any gods of any scientific nature, all who believe in rights granted by the gods are certifiably insane.
Cerpin Taxt
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 11,940
- 542
- 126
I'm sorry, where did you get the impression that anyone is "recruiting" anyone else?
colonelciller: we cannot to declare with any measure of sanity that we have rights granted by gods without concrete evidence that any such gods exist.
M: Where did you get this idea? Is this just another assumption you make without any evidence like the claim you make that God is?
c: since there is no concrete evidence for any gods of any scientific nature, all who believe in rights granted by the gods are certifiably insane.
M: I would say it would be much more appropriate to call somebody insane who assumed he had full capacity to judge or define what scientific evidence is or that he had at hand all the evidence there is.
How do you express here anything but your personal belief?
What if you could only see God if you meditate within a Star of David with six special offerings at the six points or you had to look at God with the same eye as he looks at you. Maybe you need a special capacitor to charge your mind made from resin and gold leaf. Or maybe you have to say 'form is here emptiness emptiness form a few million times. Maybe you have to stand on one leg or spin a prayer wheel or beat a goat skin drum. Perhaps you have to leave your body and astral travel to a planet that circles Sirius. What if to know God you have to be what you call insane?
M: Where did you get this idea? Is this just another assumption you make without any evidence like the claim you make that God is?
c: since there is no concrete evidence for any gods of any scientific nature, all who believe in rights granted by the gods are certifiably insane.
M: I would say it would be much more appropriate to call somebody insane who assumed he had full capacity to judge or define what scientific evidence is or that he had at hand all the evidence there is.
How do you express here anything but your personal belief?
What if you could only see God if you meditate within a Star of David with six special offerings at the six points or you had to look at God with the same eye as he looks at you. Maybe you need a special capacitor to charge your mind made from resin and gold leaf. Or maybe you have to say 'form is here emptiness emptiness form a few million times. Maybe you have to stand on one leg or spin a prayer wheel or beat a goat skin drum. Perhaps you have to leave your body and astral travel to a planet that circles Sirius. What if to know God you have to be what you call insane?
colonelciller
Senior member
- Sep 29, 2012
- 915
- 0
- 0
Moonbeam: no-one anywhere has yet produced scientific evidence of any kind of gods or supreme beings. If I am wrong please point to such evidence for all of us forum-lurkers to gawk at.
in the absence of scientific evidence for any kind of god or gods, any derivative notions of rights granted from such beings for which there is no evidence is pure unbridled FANTASY. now taking a fantasy and pretending that it is Real with a capital R... that's dilusional, that's certifiably insane.
no nice way to put it
in the absence of scientific evidence for any kind of god or gods, any derivative notions of rights granted from such beings for which there is no evidence is pure unbridled FANTASY. now taking a fantasy and pretending that it is Real with a capital R... that's dilusional, that's certifiably insane.
no nice way to put it
What is real? When you look at a tree what do you see? You see your memories about what you were taught a tree is, first of all that a tree is roots and a trunk, branches and leaves, and so on down into its anatomy. What you see is words about what a tree is and you call that reality. You call thought which is of the past real. You are a prisoner of duality and a lumberman who will destroy the world to build a table. But you are not insane. You are normal. You do not have the eyes that can see the universe in a grain of sand. You have your being in God but you have no idea, like a fish that denies the existence of water. You look all around and do not see it. You have hidden the truth under a million tons of your certainty, but you know less than nothing. You took the blue pill. You can't go down the rabbit hole with that. If you want to find proof that God exists you will have to look within your own heart. The science is in knowing how. It takes a lot of unlearning.
PowerEngineer
Diamond Member
- Oct 22, 2001
- 3,607
- 787
- 136
It'd be nice if you addressed or even acknowledged (rather than just deleting when quoting) my attempts to add some perspective to your unchanging drumbeat on the conspiracy of science to deny the supernatural.
I understand that your belief in a biblical god is beyond questioning (for better or worse). My question in the context of my posting was clearly aimed at establishing whether or not your belief in the science conspiracy is equally beyond question. Right now I gather you in fact "close-minded" in at least that regard.
For starters, toss out any notion of any G*d being the author of any rights. To impose such is the authoritarian decree to deny religious freedom upon those who do not recognise said G*d.
Religion is only that which is formed by society. Morality of society comes before that of any formulation and compilation of any religious doctrine. Such socially developed constructs are hardly isolated to that of human civilisation. Any socially interacting animal recognise the need for moral limits upon action and their acceptance within the community. The difference being the recording of such doctrines and the point of such recordings lending to lasting and transferable tales of morality.
In brief -- to rationally discuss rights and morality, then one must honestly toss out religion and G*d as being the forbearer and necessity to realise such.
That all said, here are the contemporary universal rights as written and accepted by our global society:
Religion is only that which is formed by society. Morality of society comes before that of any formulation and compilation of any religious doctrine. Such socially developed constructs are hardly isolated to that of human civilisation. Any socially interacting animal recognise the need for moral limits upon action and their acceptance within the community. The difference being the recording of such doctrines and the point of such recordings lending to lasting and transferable tales of morality.
In brief -- to rationally discuss rights and morality, then one must honestly toss out religion and G*d as being the forbearer and necessity to realise such.
That all said, here are the contemporary universal rights as written and accepted by our global society:
You say for starters you say lets toss out the idea of God being the author of any rights but for starters the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that you quote starts out with "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world" in short, what you reject for starters is where the UN began as a first statement. The UN has simply said that we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed some how or another other not specified with inalienable rights. The sense of the word inalienable can be gleaned from its synonyms: inviolable, absolute, unassailable, inherent. On what authority then, do you propose to assure your fellow human beings that their rights are something other than UN invented and declared, or do you?
You seem to want to replace God with the UN, replace the notion that you have rights you were born with to rights some men in NY declare you have. I wouldn't want to offend your secular beliefs by imposing my God on you but then, I would prefer not to have to go to the court of some potential secular dictator and have to plead you relative thinking as the basis of my absolute rights. I guess you can shoot yourself in the foot if you want to, but I would prefer you didn't shoot mine as you do so.
Such rights never have been developed out of some vapid vacuum. That belief is for impossible fairy tales held by those who arbitrarily wish to neglect reality. No god nor religion being present before what a society constructs.
I was quite clear that morality and the constructed record of such has been defined by a developing society -- in the above case the UN simply being the contemporary manifestation of the pinnacle of a communicative global society.
Last edited:
Given the human rights status of a huge percentage of countries in the UN, I'm not inclined to care much (if at all) about its definitions. UN declarations always seem to fall somewhere between meaningless platitudes and guidelines that are followed only by the nations that least need to reform.
It may be easy for you to be so dismissive of anything that involves the United Nations, particularly questionable for dismissing the above, "THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations."
Charles, care to comment upon the content of this declaration rather than simply disregard it all due its collective sourcing that particularly involved drafting by society's such as your own? Those who have such rabid hatred of anything that involves the UN often neglect that their own states, such a the USA, have been prime driving forces and participants for what they wish to selectively disassociate and critique. An ultimate in whimsical ad hominem attacks.
I'd gather that it is for another topic if you wish to argue the 'meaningless" body of the United Nations lacking worth as an inclusive forum for all states and societies to have a focal point for diplomacy and for whatever they may draft. Developed and ratified international laws, charters, and treaties must be equally 'meaningless to you? What's the point, eh?
Over millennia of our varying civilisations have developed into a global society, that declaration has become the universal base standard of expectations.
This thread began as religion having decreed rights. That is false. Morality and rights -- as allegories for any equally developed religion -- are derived from society.
In the body of the UN, certainly not all states have achieved and practiced those intentions, yet that may not negate what we as a global society have all drafted as a principled and moral goal for universal rights.
Last edited:
Whiskey16
Such rights never have been developed out of some vapid vacuum. That belief is for impossible fairy tales held by those who arbitrarily wish to neglect reality. No god nor religion being present before what a society constructs.
M: Well to begin with, I would like to ask you if English is your native language because there is something odd about the way you use it that comes across oddly perhaps even a bit stilted to my ear. I ask because I would react differently to some sort of unnatural affectation as opposed to one created by unfamiliarity and lack of practice. But for whatever reason, it's a bit of a struggle for me to parse out your meaning.
I don't think anything I have said about the inalienability of rights would imply they were developed out of some vapid vacuum, however it is you may conceive what a vapid vacuum might be. Furthermore, since you have offered no proof of what reality actually is, your claims as to what are fairy tales and arbitrary remain unpersuasive to me.
Finally, the claims I have made are that rights are inalienable because they adhere to being an intelligent primate, one that felt fair and unfair long before we learned to use language, and that language only introduced duality and thus comparative analysis on top of what is instinctual causing the fundamental and inalienable source of rights to not only get questioned but even lost since duality is the source of good and evil, no evil having previously existed.
W: I was quite clear that morality and the constructed record of such has been defined by a developing society -- in the above case the UN simply being the contemporary manifestation of the pinnacle of a communicative global society.
M: It matters not to me how clear you might be on that topic as it affects not a wit the contention I have tried to make. The evolution of morality inevitably transfers to a society that must deal with the consequences of the fact that language introduces good and evil and is used as the primary methodology in programming people. Language introduces the possibility that we can be taught to hate ourselves and those who hate themselves are unnatural, out of touch with their natural inclinations, and cunningly egotistical. A being divided against itself lives in hell.
The fact that there is a way back to unity even if not generally known will and has been throughout time past and in always will be in time to come means that there will always be folk who know that rights are inalienable and they will always try to impart that knowledge to their fellow human beings because that knowledge flows from a peak state, a state of such perfection that it carries with it its own absolute certainty. It is this state of consciousness, I believe, that creates both God and all societal notions of morality. It is the inner state of reality, the true self of man that creates both of these things, one going right along with the other. They are concepts created by the experience of unity of consciousness thrown out as bones into the world of duality where they will inevitably be corrupted.
Such rights never have been developed out of some vapid vacuum. That belief is for impossible fairy tales held by those who arbitrarily wish to neglect reality. No god nor religion being present before what a society constructs.
M: Well to begin with, I would like to ask you if English is your native language because there is something odd about the way you use it that comes across oddly perhaps even a bit stilted to my ear. I ask because I would react differently to some sort of unnatural affectation as opposed to one created by unfamiliarity and lack of practice. But for whatever reason, it's a bit of a struggle for me to parse out your meaning.
I don't think anything I have said about the inalienability of rights would imply they were developed out of some vapid vacuum, however it is you may conceive what a vapid vacuum might be. Furthermore, since you have offered no proof of what reality actually is, your claims as to what are fairy tales and arbitrary remain unpersuasive to me.
Finally, the claims I have made are that rights are inalienable because they adhere to being an intelligent primate, one that felt fair and unfair long before we learned to use language, and that language only introduced duality and thus comparative analysis on top of what is instinctual causing the fundamental and inalienable source of rights to not only get questioned but even lost since duality is the source of good and evil, no evil having previously existed.
W: I was quite clear that morality and the constructed record of such has been defined by a developing society -- in the above case the UN simply being the contemporary manifestation of the pinnacle of a communicative global society.
M: It matters not to me how clear you might be on that topic as it affects not a wit the contention I have tried to make. The evolution of morality inevitably transfers to a society that must deal with the consequences of the fact that language introduces good and evil and is used as the primary methodology in programming people. Language introduces the possibility that we can be taught to hate ourselves and those who hate themselves are unnatural, out of touch with their natural inclinations, and cunningly egotistical. A being divided against itself lives in hell.
The fact that there is a way back to unity even if not generally known will and has been throughout time past and in always will be in time to come means that there will always be folk who know that rights are inalienable and they will always try to impart that knowledge to their fellow human beings because that knowledge flows from a peak state, a state of such perfection that it carries with it its own absolute certainty. It is this state of consciousness, I believe, that creates both God and all societal notions of morality. It is the inner state of reality, the true self of man that creates both of these things, one going right along with the other. They are concepts created by the experience of unity of consciousness thrown out as bones into the world of duality where they will inevitably be corrupted.
Charles, care to comment upon the content of this declaration rather than simply disregard it all due its collective sourcing that particularly involved drafting by society's such as your own? Those who have such rabid hatred of anything that involves the UN often neglect that their own states, such a the USA, have been prime driving forces and participants for what they wish to selectively disassociate and critique. An ultimate in whimsical ad hominem attacks.
Questioning the value and legitimacy of a declaration based on the declaring orgnazition's credibility and track record is not an "ad hominem attack". It is part of rational discernment.
These documents have no binding authority and even the most basic of the rights outlined are routinely ignored by dozens of countries. I mean, China, Syria and Iran are signators to that document, so what value can it possibly have?
As for the document itself, lots of pretty words. The negative rights are ones already pretty much univerally accepted by those countries that actually care about them. As for the positive "rights", sorry, I don't believe in such. You do not have a "right" to a standard of living, with the only possible exception being children and the severely disabled.
Why would you not have a right to a standard of living if a standard of living requires a job and all of the goods required to live also require money? Shouldn't everybody be entitled to some methodology to earn a living wage, except for children and the disabled? Does not society owe people a path, at least, to the pursuit of happiness or justly deserve revolution, if not?
Perhaps a topic for a different thread.
"Owe people a path"?
Ever heard of Chobani yogurt? I ate one this morning. The owner of that company was an immigrant from Turkey who bought a closed Kraft yogurt factory in 2007 on a shoestring budget when everyone told him he was insane because Kraft was leaving the yogurt business for good reason. His company now sells over $1 billion worth of yogurt a year worldwide and just won a prestigious entrepreneurship award.
Now, where it gets interesting is that he started this company with the help of a government loan. So one could say that this is evidence that government has a role to play in providing opportunity. But I think that is still a far cry from people declaring they have a "right" to a standard of living. You don't -- if you want a standard of living, go out there and earn it.
Ever heard of Chobani yogurt? I ate one this morning. The owner of that company was an immigrant from Turkey who bought a closed Kraft yogurt factory in 2007 on a shoestring budget when everyone told him he was insane because Kraft was leaving the yogurt business for good reason. His company now sells over $1 billion worth of yogurt a year worldwide and just won a prestigious entrepreneurship award.
Now, where it gets interesting is that he started this company with the help of a government loan. So one could say that this is evidence that government has a role to play in providing opportunity. But I think that is still a far cry from people declaring they have a "right" to a standard of living. You don't -- if you want a standard of living, go out there and earn it.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,243
- 136
I'm not implying any such thing. No evidence of God's existence simply means there is no reason to believe God exists. It doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. Just like no evidence of the FSM does not prove the non-existence of the FSM either. If you want to assert the existence of a thing, you need to meet a burden of proof or that thing is irrelevant.
Yes, but why speculate about things for which we may later discover evidence? There are lots of things which may at some later time be proven. So what? Are we supposed to believe in these things prior to the evidence being discovered?
I don't understand how this relates to what I posted. No, we should continue exploring and evaluating the universe we live in and draw conclusions based on wherever the evidence leads us.
I don't believe in anything for which there is no evidence. Everything else you're asserting is attempting to read something into what I'm saying. I don't rule out any possibility for things to be proven at a later time, nor do I spend much time fretting about them either.
What useless commentary.
The UN human rights principles are a valuable and important measure to improve things.
You could attack the US Declaration of Independance with the same sort of drivel.
'All men are created equal', what a meaningless platitude, ignored by its own authors who owned slaves! Endowed by their creator? Says who? Meaningless platitude!
Are you sure? It seems that you are saying not only do you not believe without evidence but that you believe that makes rational sense. Can you offer me any reasons as to why you believe that is rational, rational ones of course, because it sort of sounds to me like an irrational faith. It would seem odd to believe you need reasons to believe but don't have any reasons to believe that. Have you perhaps made some unconscious assumptions that a belief in reasonable proofs as the foundation for believing is rational a priori because I would just chalk up that kind of thinking along with my belief that truth is innate and that faith in reason is also innate and part of that same inalienable basket of goodies we were born to possess.
But when you point out that it was ignored by its own authors doesn't that demonstrate that when it comes to actions such lofty notions can easily become platitudes. It seems to me that the injustice of folk who can spout and advance moral precepts on one hand and stab folk in the back with the other can provoke rage in anybody with an innate sense of justice, no? CK, it seems to me is just stating facts that piss him off, that what he sees are hypocrites.
Fine words will protect nobody. You can only be safe when your neighbor is what he was created to be. You can neither make or force people to be moral. It is only self love that demands justice of the self. Everything goes back to that. The Pope has no army nor does the conscious self.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,243
- 136
No, I don't need to have "faith" in reason. It isn't a matter of faith, but of observed cause and effect. Scientific, evidence based reason has produced tangible, material results time and time again. Without it we'd still be living in the caves. I believe in things which work.
I guess it must be in your nature to believe in things that work. A lot of people believe in things that don't work over and over and over again. Probably you have some inner sense that tells you your way is better. I wonder what it could be.
woolfe9998
Lifer
- Apr 8, 2013
- 16,242
- 14,243
- 136
I'm going to assume you're serious here even though I'm not entirely sure.
It has nothing to do with what is "better." If relying on evidence produces a tangible result, then it "works." The result may even not be desirable. For example, we created nuclear weapons using evidence-based reason. However, I know that reason /= mere "faith" because one produces tangible results and the other does not. I don't need to have faith in reason. It observably works to achieve whatever purpose it aims to achieve, at least some of the time.
I'm pretty sure you believe in evidence-backed reason too. For example, your repeated assertions about the "conservative brain defect" are based on scientific studies, no? Haven't you linked such studies here in the past?
The principles could be called 'platitudes' - yet they are not just 'platitudes', in either case.
The moral vision of 'all men are created equal' and others the authors took some steps to follow but not others, remained a compass for people to follow to take more steps later.
In the centuries after the declaration, those principles were referred to again and again while other steps to equality from racial equalty to gender to quality to gay equality have been fought for. It's helped pave the way for the constitutional amendment of right to equal treatment under the law, which itself could be seen as a 'platitude' written by men who strongly opposed equality in many areas but whose work was used to get that equality eventually.
The UN charter is guiding principles to shape, to guide, debate and policies and laws in a good direction, even if that goal is not met much of the time.
We interpreted the post differently. I read it as an attack on the UN principles as useless.
Platitudes are things said with little or no intention of being followed - not things set as goals even though they are often not met at the time.
This ties into the whole agenda that's anti-UN, attacking it as useless - which can be a self-fulfilling prophecy if the most powerful nation chooses to not support it.
I felt that the commonly expressed rage from the right against the UN was part of why you wanted to defend it and I don't disagree, but at the same time, his criticism struck me as being descriptively accurate so no matter what his opinions of the UN may be, his critique was valid. The presence of the former attitude if he actually has it, does not negate the latter, in my opinion. The world from where I sit is sometimes times inspiring and at others very disappointing.
Last edited:
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter