2nd Chances

Quote: Nareed

Not at all. Laws exist to protect rights.

It's all spelled out right near the beginning of the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Spelled out, but spelled out by man. And I don't mean in a "God vs no-god" sense; clearly God did not reveal himself and palaver with our forefathers when the Declaration was created. This is simply what man believes to be true, what man decrees must be so, maybe by their interpretation of God, granted, but definately by the thoughts of man. I mean... I think I can safely say that, like me, you are in the no-god camp. How do you interpret your above post? It says, flat out, that rights are given by their Creator (capital C). But you, Nareed, have no god, yet still have rights. Same as me. I feel it's because rights are a concept created by man, and therefore I, as man, can create them as well. Sure, no law would ever protect the rights I decree (thankfully), but that toad on my porch have a right to live because, well, because I say so. The toad on your porch,...that's up to you. That's my take on rights, anyway.

Quote: Nareed

That's as wrong as calling color a concept developed by people to define some characteristics of an object. A green object reflects light of certain wavelengths, whether or not you call it "green" or even acknowledge "color."

The problem is that once a government departs from using the law to protect rights, and starts using it to grant people privileges and calling them rights, such as giving everyone the "right" to have an education, the concept of "rights" begins to lose all meaning. Also when a guiding document, such as the constitution, lists some rights and people come to believe those are the only real "rights" that should exist.

On one hand you are expanding the concept of rights way beyond its natural scope, on the other you are limiting it.

Here is maybe the source of all confusion. A color, refering to your example, IS a concept. Scientifically, it is light of a certain wavelength, that is a truth with or without man. But the color green, I would argue, does not exist but in the mind of man. A deer is colorblind (as am I). It, or I, perceive the wave length of light where green exists, but do not see "green". But nitpicking aside, "color", defined as specific wave lengths of light, exist in the natural world. Before man, during man, after man and where man does not reside, that wave length exists. It can be detected, observed and measured. Rights can be none of these things. Calling it anything other than a concept created in the human mind is something I would need proof of and explained how it was done. Since it is man that created rights, and since I am a man, I can extend rights to non humans. Again, this is not something I would wish laws upon to protect. I agree with your slippery slope comments. I just don't think it is God or government who are the sole provider of rights. Maybe my scope of rights is larger than most, or larger than the concept of rights intended, but that's my take on it.

Quote: Face

Spelled out, but spelled out by man.

The law of universal gravitation is spelled out by Newton. That doesn't make it in any less valid or natural.

Quote:

But you, Nareed, have no god, yet still have rights.

Irrelevant. If Newton said his laws are how God arranges the universe, his description of gravity, motion, inertia, etc are still right.

If we grant that rights are a man-made construct, then they can be arbitrarily trampled by those with sufficient force and authority on their side. This already happens, there's no need to make it easier.

Quote: Nareed

The law of universal gravitation is spelled out by Newton. That doesn't make it in any less valid or natural.

...If Newton said his laws are how God arranges the universe, his description of gravity, motion, inertia, etc are still right.

If we grant that rights are a man-made construct, then they can be arbitrarily trampled by those with sufficient force and authority on their side. This already happens, there's no need to make it easier.

OK, let's try again. Yes, Newton spelled them out. He put words to describe something that exists. But, he did not create gravity. Gravity existed, regardless of Newton, from the moment existance started (whether you believe Big Bang or Creation). It seems you believe rights exist in the same fashion. (I do not, which was my last post's point)

So let me ask, as it might help me understand where you're coming from. Do you believe rights exist regardless of man, much like my gravity example? If so, how? From the yes-Gods, the answer is simple. It's right there in the Declaration - "endowed by the Creator" i.e. they were given by God. Being a no-god, how do you interpret your right to rights? You say rights being "a man made construct" is somehow dangerous, yet I don't see how a no-god could concieve of rights being anything but. You've certainly piqued my interest on your interpretation, which I surely wish to hear.

Quote: Face

OK, let's try again. Yes, Newton spelled them out. He put words to describe something that exists. But, he did not create gravity. Gravity existed, regardless of Newton, from the moment existance started (whether you believe Big Bang or Creation). It seems you believe rights exist in the same fashion. (I do not, which was my last post's point)

Fine. Mendel put the laws of biological inheritance in words, that doesn't make them less re

Quote:

So let me ask, as it might help me understand where you're coming from. Do you believe rights exist regardless of man, much like my gravity example? If so, how?

Not any more than Mendel's laws exist regardless of life. Naturally if there were no life, there would be no biological inheritance of genes. So if there were no sentient, self-aware, intelligent life in the universe, then there would be no rights.

Quote:

From the yes-Gods, the answer is simple. It's right there in the Declaration - "endowed by the Creator" i.e. they were given by God. Being a no-god, how do you interpret your right to rights?

If something is inherent in a class of being, like rights are to man, then it doesn't matter whether Jefferson ascribed such rights to God, Beelzebub or anything else. His description that man is endowed with rights and that these are unalienable is still correct. Beliefs in god or not are irrelevant. Please don't make me repeat myself again.

Quote: Nareed

If something is inherent in a class of being, like rights are to man, then it doesn't matter whether Jefferson ascribed such rights to God, Beelzebub or anything else. His description that man is endowed with rights and that these are unalienable is still correct. Beliefs in god or not are irrelevant. Please don't make me repeat myself again.

Trust me, I am in no way trying to be purposely obtuse. It's only that in my understanding of this (which may or may not be correct), there were only two ways rights could exist- God made them or man made them. You're disbelief in God and feeling that mad-made was a dangerous concept left me with no other options that I could come up with on my own. Your last post referencing Mendel implies a scientific reason, and I must admit, I am totally lost on how science can proove rights. But I will pester you no longer on the subject.

Quote: Face

Trust me, I am in no way trying to be purposely obtuse. It's only that in my understanding of this (which may or may not be correct), there were only two ways rights could exist- God made them or man made them.

I just gave you a third alternative. If you're not being obtuse, then don't be obtuse and look at it.

BTW this is not a matter of science, but of philosophy.

Quote: Face

Strange way of looking at things, methinks. That is, if I understand correctly - one cannot be both void of God AND have caring, compassionate, and just morals. Seems a reach, to put it mildly.

One of the things I want to be super-careful about making clear is this: I see a distinction in whether or not someone believes in god and whether or not god exists. In other words, the reality of the existence (or non-existence) of god has nothing to with what you believe. To use a tired analogy, people once believed the world flat, but that didn't make it actually flat.

This means that it is indeed possible that people who say they don't believe in god can behave in ways that suggest they do, at some level. This may be coincidental in some cases, but not in the context of this discussion, especially when Survival comes into cross-purposes with Caring.

Quote: Face

But to look at your post deeper, without prejudice, I think I get what your saying. I think the difference is that we are in a way seperate from nature. Survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us as it does an animal. No one here is killing other's children to advance their own genes. No one here is leaving the old, sick and weak to die for the betterment of their herd. We are afforded the chance to ignore the "survival instinct", and allowed the opportunity to care. To turn around your example, if we came to a catastophe, some world destroying event that you see in the movies, where all tech is lost, agriculture is lost, all sort of order is lost, would the religious stoop to stealing, to hurting, to murdering another person, if it meant their or their families survival? Would anyone here put "thou shalt not ..." above watching your child starve to death before their eyes? I wouldn't think so, nor would I then state that their religious philosophy is a sham as a result of their transgressions.

Thanks, I appreciate the benefit of the doubt for discussion purposes. You say that you think the difference is a way we, Man, are separate from nature. The problem with that is, if (generic-)you believe evolution-science to be rigorous, you cannot also, with intellectual integrity, say Man is separate from nature.

As for the rest of your paragraph (not including the doomsday example), who can disagree with those things? They're absolutely true, and they're absolutely observed by all of us on a daily basis.

So ... these absolutely true things that we absolutely observe on a daily basis - the things that separate us from nature - are now running in direct conflict with the absolute science-proof of evolution. Both cannot be true. We cannot be fully natural and separate from nature at the same time.

Well, we can, but that would mean admitting that there exists a super-nature.

But many of us live with the conflict, either ignoring it or chasing away anyone who would point it out.

Quote: Face

I care about the treatment of animals. I've pretty much given my whole stance on the subject in this thread. Yet I have repeatedly stated my athiest beliefs. Are they mutually exclusive? I like to think I'm proof that they're not. Can I fully explain it? Not really. I guess the closest I could come would be to paraphrase ME's post and say just because something wasn't created, just because it's a random occurance, a mistake, even, doesn't mean it is not something to behold and treasure. For any example that that doesn't cover refer to my other post in the "Does God Exist" thread about my actions "echoing through time". I will have an after life, it just has nothing to do with religion or spirituality as it is normal defined.

I have no doubt that you care about animals. And while I haven't read them, I also have no doubt that you profess atheism. You are proof of something, but I would say that you are proof that people can profess belief in one thing and behave the exact opposite of that profession. I think those that are anti-Christian make this statement of Christians all the time (although usually that's done with hostility and disdain, and I don't intend any here).

In past posts, I've said that you can't look to science to prove or disprove god, that you have to look somewhere else. Well, this is a "somewhere else." You, unlike many with similar beliefs, are at least open that there's a conflict. Unfortunately, ME's maxim doesn't answer the conflict and take away the tension; it only soothes the discomfort.

Personally, I think it's better to keep drilling down than just try and soothe-and-forget.

NB regarding the doomsday example: dealing with imaginary things is not something I like to do, so let me change the frame of reference. Many firefighters ran into the Towers on 9/11 knowing it would be dangerous in the extreme. Following the "doomsday scenario" logic, I'm forced to say that those firefighters didn't care about their family or children because they went on a dangerous mission. Of course, that's not true.

My point is, an extreme situation smelts out who you are. If you are a brave firefighter, you'll run into a Tower, even though you care about your family, because you care about the people in the Tower. If you are a cowardly firefighter, you will hide behind your family and not run into the building, because you care about your own self. Also, if you're this kind of firefighter, it's only a matter of time before you fail your family.

Wow. I feel my mind opening. And it is good.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

One of the things I want to be super-careful about making clear is this: I see a distinction in whether or not someone believes in god and whether or not god exists. In other words, the reality of the existence (or non-existence) of god has nothing to with what you believe. To use a tired analogy, people once believed the world flat, but that didn't make it actually flat.

This means that it is indeed possible that people who say they don't believe in god can behave in ways that suggest they do, at some level. This may be coincidental in some cases, but not in the context of this discussion, especially when Survival comes into cross-purposes with Caring.

I get what you're saying here, at least I get it as far as I am capable. In a simple sense, I am a no-god. I firmly believe God or gods do not exist. I wouldn't say this is something I'm close minded about; there are times when I feel I am able to open myself to the possibility of God/gods and look at the situation without bias, but in every case I find nothing, feel nothing, and what I find that feels right to me is no-god. But, I fully, 100% admit beyond a shadow of a doubt that I cannot prove there is no god, and that I cannot disprove there is a god; this question I chalk up as permanently unanswerable. Do I belive in god? No. Does god exist? I cannot know.

Is it possible for me, a no-god, to behave in ways that suggest I'm a yes-god? Absolutely. I often say that many of the traits I try to hold myself to are very similar to "Christian beliefs". I just don't assign religion as the cause of why I am that way. I think that was part of the disagreement between myself and FrGamble in the other "God" thread; if Man is a natural animal, why are these things important to me? I think that's what your refering to with your Survival vs Caring comment. Some of what I believe I've touched elsewhere - being "nice" has more societal rewards (getting the job, having friends to lean on, receiving help from coworkers) which, I'd argue, has to do with our survival as a modern human. I gave another example in that thread of a non-society reason, my version of "the after life". But for a clean, sum-it-all-up-in-one-paragraph answer, I admit I have none. This topic has taken me to a place in my belief system I've rarely, if ever, tread, and I've just recently begun hashing it out. And, like the recurring theme in this post of yours, there are contradictions, places that are not immediately explainable, certain beliefs that I must go over again and see if I feel if they're really true.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

Thanks, I appreciate the benefit of the doubt for discussion purposes. You say that you think the difference is a way we, Man, are separate from nature. The problem with that is, if (generic-)you believe evolution-science to be rigorous, you cannot also, with intellectual integrity, say Man is separate from nature.
...
So ... these absolutely true things that we absolutely observe on a daily basis - the things that separate us from nature - are now running in direct conflict with the absolute science-proof of evolution. Both cannot be true. We cannot be fully natural and separate from nature at the same time.
...
But many of us live with the conflict, either ignoring it or chasing away anyone who would point it out.

This, in addition to my last sentence, is why I hate the extreme black/white, Yes-God/No-God viewpoint. It doesn't allow you to reexamine, to rethink, to explore. And funny you bring up the "ignoring it or chasing it away" part. Why do we do that? Where does that reaction fall in the "science-evolution-natural" arguement? This question, as well as your others, I don't have a simple answer for. I could retype things which I feel support the "natural" arguement (being nice = rewards = survival), but tackling it to the point I feel would do it justice would A) be a damn long post indeed, and B) still be incomplete.

Quote: ItsCalledSoccer

I have no doubt that you care about animals. And while I haven't read them, I also have no doubt that you profess atheism. You are proof of something, but I would say that you are proof that people can profess belief in one thing and behave the exact opposite of that profession. I think those that are anti-Christian make this statement of Christians all the time (although usually that's done with hostility and disdain, and I don't intend any here).

In past posts, I've said that you can't look to science to prove or disprove god, that you have to look somewhere else. Well, this is a "somewhere else." You, unlike many with similar beliefs, are at least open that there's a conflict. Unfortunately, ME's maxim doesn't answer the conflict and take away the tension; it only soothes the discomfort.

Personally, I think it's better to keep drilling down than just try and soothe-and-forget.

You think I am proof that I say no-god but act as yes-god, and you think that there are those that accuse yes-gods of acting as no-gods. That's fair enough. While I've certainly sinned in a Christian sense and vehemently oppose certain parts of religion, I certainly couldn't deny that I "act" Christian. And there's no shortage of the religious doing quite hurtful things, despite professing how wrong they are to do. So where does that leave us? In my opinion, we should leave with the last sentence quoted, "I think it's better to keep drilling down that just try to soothe and forget", and if I may add, "discontinue this one-upping of belief vs belief." This is why I continued to press Nareed. I wasn't so much trying to pester her as looking for more information, a different way of understanding, perhaps. I post a lot of weird questions, like the one I took a bit of heat about for questioning the celebration of Osama's death. Why do I do this? This post is why. There are things in my athieism, and in the religious, that I don't understand. What people think, why people act a certain way, why they feel a certain way. Excersizes like this help to educate me in that sense. I hope, as in my encounter with FrGamble, that others are educated too. Maybe now he can understand how an athiest can still be "good", and what compels one to do so. After all, that's why we're here, right? To learn about...erm...bah. Sorry, Wiz. We've done it again =p.

To conclude on topic, I believe my compassion for animals has a natural reason. In a way, my belief system demands that it must. I think I can partially explain it, but know I'll probably never be able to give a definate, argue-proof reason. Which, I think, is pretty much where the religious reason would end up. If Y, then how come X? Dunno. But I'll continue to try to find out.

If your too impatient to wait for me to find out or to find out for yourselfs, then fine, I could show you the true answer to God vs No-God. But then I'd have to kill you. (Ha! I made it literal!) /rimshot.

Not being sarcastic, yours may be the best religious-topic post in the history of this forum, if not the internet. Very impressive.

I don't really feel like there's any further this can go without entering into either of our journeys in answering these questions, and both of us would be stupid to let an internet forum have that kind of influence. But I think that, wherever you land, there's little doubt that it will be a place of thoughtfulness and honesty, and not avoidance and defensiveness.

I would like to think the same for myself. But then the scary question arises: once we select a building to put our ladder against, how do we know it's the right building? Or even if there's a "right building." I think there is, but that doesn't mean there is. I'm still working through that part.

Quote: Face

I get what you're saying here, at least I get it as far as I am capable. In a simple sense, I am a no-god. I firmly believe God or gods do not exist. I wouldn't say this is something I'm close minded about; there are times when I feel I am able to open myself to the possibility of God/gods and look at the situation without bias, but in every case I find nothing, feel nothing, and what I find that feels right to me is no-god. But, I fully, 100% admit beyond a shadow of a doubt that I cannot prove there is no god, and that I cannot disprove there is a god; this question I chalk up as permanently unanswerable. Do I belive in god? No. Does god exist? I cannot know.

Is it possible for me, a no-god, to behave in ways that suggest I'm a yes-god? Absolutely. I often say that many of the traits I try to hold myself to are very similar to "Christian beliefs". I just don't assign religion as the cause of why I am that way. I think that was part of the disagreement between myself and FrGamble in the other "God" thread; if Man is a natural animal, why are these things important to me? I think that's what your refering to with your Survival vs Caring comment. Some of what I believe I've touched elsewhere - being "nice" has more societal rewards (getting the job, having friends to lean on, receiving help from coworkers) which, I'd argue, has to do with our survival as a modern human. I gave another example in that thread of a non-society reason, my version of "the after life". But for a clean, sum-it-all-up-in-one-paragraph answer, I admit I have none. This topic has taken me to a place in my belief system I've rarely, if ever, tread, and I've just recently begun hashing it out. And, like the recurring theme in this post of yours, there are contradictions, places that are not immediately explainable, certain beliefs that I must go over again and see if I feel if they're really true.

This comes across to me as a great identification of the conflict, nothing I think I can add to it. I bolded the part I did to mention that sometimes what we feel can be deceptive, especially in the big issues of life.

The other part I bolded was because that is something Christianity believes; basically, that being nice and moral will make life easier and better than not being nice and moral. So while true, it doesn't seem to affect the answering of the questions. (Christianity goes further and also says, but you still end up in the ground, and life is a bitch no matter how you behave.)

Quote: Face

This, in addition to my last sentence, is why I hate the extreme black/white, Yes-God/No-God viewpoint. It doesn't allow you to reexamine, to rethink, to explore. And funny you bring up the "ignoring it or chasing it away" part. Why do we do that? Where does that reaction fall in the "science-evolution-natural" arguement? This question, as well as your others, I don't have a simple answer for. I could retype things which I feel support the "natural" arguement (being nice = rewards = survival), but tackling it to the point I feel would do it justice would A) be a damn long post indeed, and B) still be incomplete.

This is true, but I also think that we shouldn't be afraid to know answers. These days, it's very popular to have questions, but it's very unpopular to have answers. But sometimes, there comes a point where discussion is fruitless and possibly confusing because the conclusion is there. For example, we know the earth goes around the sun; no further discussion is necessary and being "open-minded" is just stupid.

In other words, there is a difference between "open-mindedness" and "keeping a question open that should be closed." This is not what I'm doing, and I don't get the sense you're doing it. But it does happen. Open-Mindedness is not god, but god (if he exists) is open-minded (that whole man-in-god's-image thing). But that's not to say that he/she/it would suffer fools on questions he/she/it knows the answer to.

Sometimes extreme black/white is exactly the correct way to look at something. It is correct to judge, in this way, that Hitler was evil. Hitler, like any other human, is more complicated than that summary, but the judgment is still correct. Complications don't always matter, and it can obfuscate things to make them matter when they don't. The example is extreme, but the concept exists and does apply. But I, like you, don't think it applies here. (Again, that doesn't answer the question of "should it apply?")

Your last paragraph deserves a separate post, but I'm going to go enjoy my Labor Day weekend now - getting groceries, doing some cooking, drinking a few beers, etc. But it's a very interesting paragraph, especially in its similarity to the Christian doctrine (as best I understand it).