Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[redhawk23]

I just view the issue as more complex than that, but maybe that's just me.

What's more complex about the situation is the social context not the argument itself. Discussions certainly require more tact to maintain friendly discussion but the points are ultimately the same.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

Basically the line of thought goes, if you are going to only support things that you can absolutely prove to be true then the only assertion you can really support to the fullest extent of that argument is that your consciousness exists in some way, that something is thinking your thoughts, even if it isn't what you identify as "you."

The acceptance that the world exists is ultimately a leap of faith.

More so is the underlying philosophic assertion of science that we live in a rational and predictable universe. That's ultimately not 100% provable. While we certainly do recognize and exploit patterns, we often assume that they are absolute. However, we humans are also very adept at finding patterns, that while they might exist aren't really significant. We often can find patterns simply because we want to and can go to far extremes to make things fit. Things like the number 23 for instance. While that's an extreme case, that sort of behavior underlies much of what we do.

Good point. I know I exist, but not that you do.

What's more complex about the situation is the social context not the argument itself. Discussions certainly require more tact to maintain friendly discussion but the points are ultimately the same.

In your opinion. I don't believe they are.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

What's more complex about the situation is the social context not the argument itself. Discussions certainly require more tact to maintain friendly discussion but the points are ultimately the same.

And something I should also mention, I think you mean civilized discussion. I have no desire to be friends with anyone who believes in god. If I had a choice, I would disown everyone I do know who believes in god.

 

[redhawk23]

And something I should also mention, I think you mean civilized discussion. I have no desire to be friends with anyone who believes in god. If I had a choice, I would disown everyone I do know who believes in god.

Wow.

I mean if that's how you feel that's how you feel but idk that just strikes me as very dogmatic.

If you feel that the religious differences are that fundamental and insurmountable that's your prerogative.

Perhaps its just because I'm faced with it so often going to a Jesuit university but I can usually find some kind of common ground with people even if its non religious. Nor do I actively avoid the topic. If it comes up it comes up and I hope the other person is mature enough to remain civil. Sometimes its best to hear people out, even if it diametrically opposed to your own views. You can learn a lot about people.

Also even if its to the point where I respect nothing of the content of their beliefs I still uphold that is their fundamental right to do so.

 

[redhawk23]

Good point. I know I exist, but not that you do.



In your opinion. I don't believe they are.

You have asked others to elaborate their points now please do the same.
On a fundamental level, how are the arguments different?

 

[Jerry Siegel]

Wow.

I mean if that's how you feel that's how you feel but idk that just strikes me as very dogmatic.

If you feel that the religious differences are that fundamental and insurmountable that's your prerogative.

Perhaps its just because I'm faced with it so often going to a Jesuit university but I can usually find some kind of common ground with people even if its non religious. Nor do I actively avoid the topic. If it comes up it comes up and I hope the other person is mature enough to remain civil. Sometimes its best to hear people out, even if it diametrically opposed to your own views. You can learn a lot about people.

Also even if its to the point where I respect nothing of the content of their beliefs I still uphold that is their fundamental right to do so.

I don't respect others' beliefs, or their right to hold them. First of all, no one has any rights. Second of all, if you wanna believe what you wanna believe, fine. But first of all make sure before you come to that belief that you've thought it through as logically as possible. Then I'll respect it.

You have asked others to elaborate their points now please do the same.
On a fundamental level, how are the arguments different?

Some people look at nature and see god in its "design". People who believe in leprechauns don't use the "design" of nature to justify that belief. They have other reasons. Therefore you would go about arguing against their beliefs in a different way than you would against beliefs in god.

 

[redhawk23]

I don't respect others' beliefs, or their right to hold them. First of all, no one has any rights. Second of all, if you wanna believe what you wanna believe, fine. But first of all make sure before you come to that belief that you've thought it through as logically as possible. Then I'll respect it.


Some people look at nature and see god in its "design". People who believe in leprechauns don't use the "design" of nature to justify that belief. They have other reasons. Therefore you would go about arguing against their beliefs in a different way than you would against beliefs in god.

It's fine to not respect the things people believe but to say that they don't have the right to believe it is disingenuous. Not to mention it makes you sound just as bad as any religious extremist in the world. I'm not saying that as an easy jab just an honest assessment of your statement.

There are quite a few places in the world as well as times throughout history, where you or I would be facing nearly certain death for the things we've posted in thread.

The fact that you don't have SWAT Clerics busting down your door right now speaks to your freedom (Wait, are you from the states?).

No one has any rights? Really? Do we not form communities and nations around social contracts? At the very least there are conventional rights.

Also they may argue from the point of design but their argument is still open to all holes as the other arguments as the design argument is built on the same foundation as any other deity argument which amounts to the same logical failings as the leprachaun. Also if they cite the "design of nature" that simply begs the question as to rather such a design exists. They would then have to prove that is the case, which they cannot. Despite how much we talk about the balance of nature and such is quite chaotic. Now it may only seem that way from certain perspectives but anomalies persist in many systems.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

It's fine to not respect the things people believe but to say that they don't have the right to believe it is disingenuous. Not to mention it makes you sound just as bad as any religious extremist in the world. I'm not saying that as an easy jab just an honest assessment of your statement.

There are quite a few places in the world as well as times throughout history, where you or I would be facing nearly certain death for the things we've posted in thread.

The fact that you don't have SWAT Clerics busting down your door right now speaks to your freedom (Wait, are you from the states?).

No one has any rights? Really? Do we not form communities and nations around social contracts? At the very least there are conventional rights.

Also they may argue from the point of design but their argument is still open to all holes as the other arguments as the design argument is built on the same foundation as any other deity argument which amounts to the same logical failings as the leprachaun. Also if they cite the "design of nature" that simply begs the question as to rather such a design exists. They would then have to prove that is the case, which they cannot. Despite how much we talk about the balance of nature and such is quite chaotic. Now it may only seem that way from certain perspectives but anomalies persist in many systems.

"RIGHTS! Boy, everyone in this country's always runnin' around yammerin' about their ****in' rights. I have a right, you have no right, we have a right, they don't have a right. Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but there's no such thing as rights, OK? They're imaginary. We made 'em up. Like the boogeyman. The Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio, Mother Goose, **** like that. Rights are an idea. They're just imaginary. They're a cute idea. Cute, but that's all. Cute, and fictional. But if you think you do have rights, let me ask ya this. Where do they come from? People say well they come from god. They're god-given rights. Oh ****, here we go again. Here we go again. The god excuse. The last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, it came from god. Anything we can't describe must have come from god. Personally, folks, I believe that if your rights came from god, he would have given you the right to some food every day, and he would have given you the right to a roof over your head. god woulda been lookin' out for ya. god woulda been lookin' out for ya. Ya know that? He wouldn't have been worryin' about makin' sure ya have a gun so ya can get drunk on Sunday night and kill your girlfriend's parents.

But let's say it's true. Let's say god gave us these rights. Why would he give us a certain number of rights? The bill of rights in this country has 10 stipulations, OK? 10 rights. And apparently god was doin' sloppy work that week because we've had to amend the bill of rights an additional 17 times. So god forgot a coupla things like... SLAVERY! Just ****in' slipped his mind. But let's say, let's say god gave us the original 10. He gave the British 13. The British bill of rights has 13 stipulations. The Germans have 29. The Belgians have 25. The Swedish have only 6. And some people in the world have no rights at all. What kind of a ****in', goddamn, god-given deal is that? No rights at all?! Why would god give different people in different countries different numbers of different rights? Boredom? Amusement? Bad arithmetic? Do we find out at long last after all this time that god is weak in math skills? Doesn't sound like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning. Sounds more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America.

Now, if you think you do have rights, one last assignment for ya. Next time you're at the computer, get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When ya get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia I want ya to type in Japanese Americans 1942, and ya'll find out all about your precious ****in' rights, OK? Alright. You know about it. You know about it. Yep. In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law-abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That's all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to a jury of their peers, no right to due process of any kind. The only right they had, RIGHT THIS WAY! Into the internment camps. Just when these American citizens needed their rights the most, their government took 'em away. And rights aren't rights if someone can take 'em away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news, even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter and shorter. (Incomprehensible).

Yeah. Sooner or later the people in this country are gonna realize the government does not give a **** about them. Government doesn't care about you or your children or your rights or your welfare or your safety. It simply doesn't give a **** about you. It's interested in its own power, that's the only thing. Keeping it, and expanding it wherever possible. Personally, when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true. I think either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all."

- George Carlin

He's not "resting in peace". He's ****in' dead.

 

[redhawk23]

George Carlin aside, the fact is you can fight your way in court and often win. Like I mentioned before, I don't know exactly where you're from but I'd wager your not in Iran right now, where a Christian Pastor was facing the death penalty for refusing to repent and "return" to Islam. That's what it means not to have rights.

And the things that George Carlin cites? Like slavery and the Japanese internment camps? That's what happens when people espouse ideas like "these people don't have rights".

Also, have you noticed that despite surly pissing more than a few people off, George Carlin had THE RIGHT to say those things? To make those observations. To call people out on their crap.

And also, who said anything about the government? The government has little to do with how we choose to interact with each other.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

George Carlin aside, the fact is you can fight your way in court and often win. Like I mentioned before, I don't know exactly where you're from but I'd wager your not in Iran right now, where a Christian Pastor was facing the death penalty for refusing to repent and "return" to Islam. That's what it means not to have rights.

And the things that George Carlin cites? Like slavery and the Japanese internment camps? That's what happens when people espouse ideas like "these people don't have rights".

Also, have you noticed that despite surly pissing more than a few people off, George Carlin had THE RIGHT to say those things? To make those observations. To call people out on their crap.

And also, who said anything about the government? The government has little to do with how we choose to interact with each other.

So how many rights do you have?

 

[redhawk23]

As of yet I've the right to live my life mostly as I so choose. Mostly though that is due from the luck of birth, my nationality and the color of my skin I am fully aware of. I am in full control of how I treat other people. I am full control of how I think. Now certainly I have been influenced by my environment but that's why critical think skills are so..critical for a lack of a better word.

Essentially, I have the right to say that 2+2=4.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

As of yet I've the right to live my life mostly as I so choose. Mostly though that is due from the luck of birth, my nationality and the color of my skin I am fully aware of. I am in full control of how I treat other people. I am full control of how I think. Now certainly I have been influenced by my environment but that's why critical think skills are so..critical for a lack of a better word.

Essentially, I have the right to say that 2+2=4.

Does every single person on the face of this planet, man, woman, or child, have exactly the same number of, and exactly the same, rights as you do?

 

[redhawk23]

They are entitled to them. Unfortunately where they live they are often not able to exercise them. It's a major problem. Who ever said it wasn't?

 

[Jerry Siegel]

They are entitled to them. Unfortunately where they live they are often not able to exercise them. It's a major problem. Who ever said it wasn't?

"Rights aren't rights if someone can take 'em away."

If you can't exercise your rights, it means you haven't got them.

 

[redhawk23]

"Rights aren't rights if someone can take 'em away."

If you can't exercise your rights, it means you haven't got them.

No it means that those who do deprive others are doing wrong. It means they are overstepping their own rights.

Also have you ever tried having an original thought of your own that didn't come from a dead comedian?

Look think of it this way, I can 5 black ops soldiers to help me kidknap you and lock you in a basement in Truth and Consequence, New Mexico. I would be violating your rights to person. More than that though I'd additionally be breaking quite a few conventional laws. That does not mean though that none of these things exist.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

No it means that those who do deprive others are doing wrong. It means they are overstepping their own rights.

Also have you ever tried having an original thought of your own that didn't come from a dead comedian?

So tell me where your rights came from.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

You're lumping all those different myths in with each other. I don't do that. I class most of them differently. To me, believing in fairies or leprechauns is a different type of belief to believing in god.

It's certainly a different type of belief. Unless you worship fairies or leprechauns and believe that fairies or leprachauns created the universe.

But there is no difference in the truth of what we KNOW about fairies and leprechauns and God. Which is NOTHING.

We KNOW nothing for sure about any of them, let alone if they exist or not.

The role they play in culture is certainly different as well as the personal meaning entailed. However for the purpose of examining validity of claims, or their worth as proof or support for an argument it amounts to about the same.

Because the beliefs about them are different, I believe that the ways you would go about proving or disproving them are different.

I don't see how those two things are connected.

You prove or disprove things in the same way... by finding evidence...

Unfortunately, all the things we are discussing have no evidence to find for or against their existence.

And something I should also mention, I think you mean civilized discussion. I have no desire to be friends with anyone who believes in god. If I had a choice, I would disown everyone I do know who believes in god.

That's just odd.

Your condemning anyone who believes God doesn't exist by saying it's irrational, AND anyone who believes he does you would disown.

So are you just condemning belief of any kind in general?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well, humans don't have any inherent rights. Any that are given, can be taken away by the same authority.

The notion of people having rights to begin with is a fairly new concept.

And if some religions are right, you have none, since there's an all powerful being who acts as your judge, jury and executioner.

 

[Spider-Who?]

So tell me where your rights came from.

Where do my rights come from? Same place as the rest of me - my mother's vagina.

Being a living, breathing, conscious being grants me (and everyone) certain rights. Because someone might try to impede or infringe upon them doesn't invalidate those rights.

 

[redhawk23]

Some are just the nature of the game. You can try all you'd like but you cannot control what I think. You can kill me for what I think, but that would be a violation not a negation of my right to free thought.

Many of our so called "rights" however are socially constructed. Society is indeed very much about controll and currently and for much of human history this has been the case. The goal of the social contract is to create a system of mutual control of balance of preventing people from damaging each other. The ideal of "your rights end where others begin" This definitely has its problems as people attempt to sway the system and control eachother. But once again, it doesn't HAVE to be this way. Its socially constructed and ultimately it comes down to the way individuals choose to treat each other.

In other places of the world and even still even in this country people attempt to control others and to define them as having no rights. All this does though is create a flawed system. These things can be fixed.

In America for instance, we do not currently have to marry whomever we'd like. If I really wanted to, I could not marry another man in the state where I live. However these social conventions can be changed. It may be a struggle, but so is life itself.

 

[redhawk23]

Well, humans don't have any inherent rights. Any that are given, can be taken away by the same authority.

The notion of people having rights to begin with is a fairly new concept.

And if some religions are right, you have none, since there's an all powerful being who acts as your judge, jury and executioner.

While I'll agree that most so called rights are conventional, for the record, the newness of a concept does not make it any less true.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

It's certainly a different type of belief. Unless you worship fairies or leprechauns and believe that fairies or leprachauns created the universe.

But there is no difference in the truth of what we KNOW about fairies and leprechauns and God. Which is NOTHING.

We KNOW nothing for sure about any of them, let alone if they exist or not.

Do you say you believe there is no god, or do you say there is no god?

I don't see how those two things are connected.

You prove or disprove things in the same way... by finding evidence...

And the evidence would be of different types depending on the beliefs.

That's just odd.

Your condemning anyone who believes God doesn't exist by saying it's irrational, AND anyone who believes he does you would disown.

So are you just condemning belief of any kind in general?

Yes. Unequivocally. Belief that is not backed up by evidence is invalid. If you believe that god exists, you have no evidence for that belief, I don't want to know you. If you believe that god doesn't exist, you have no evidence for that belief, I don't want to know you. If, like me, you don't see any reason to believe either way, and don't see any need to hold such a belief, then let me shake your hand, how are ya, how's the fam, sit down and put your feet up.

 

[redhawk23]

Do you say you believe there is no god, or do you say there is no god?



And the evidence would be of different types depending on the beliefs.



Yes. Unequivocally. Belief that is not backed up by evidence is invalid. If you believe that god exists, you have no evidence for that belief, I don't want to know you. If you believe that god doesn't exist, you have no evidence for that belief, I don't want to know you. If, like me, you don't see any reason to believe either way, and don't see any need to hold such a belief, then let me shake your hand, how are ya, how's the fam, sit down and put your feet up.

You can't prove that you are not the figment of someone else's imagination. Disown yourself.

Also belief is just one of many aspects of peoples lives and personalities. Excuse me if your hard lined stance is un-enviable.

 

[redhawk23]

And the evidence would be of different types depending on the beliefs.

They may offer different evidence but rather or not its valid or even applies to the argument is another matter.

 

[Dr.]

The notion of people having rights to begin with is a fairly new concept.

Not so new. The idea of natural (self-evident, inalienable) rights can be traced to at least the Stoics (starting around 300 BCE).