Philosophy Now Forum

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:21 pm

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:43 pm Seems to me: if a guy doesn't think god exists, and doesn't spend a whole whack of time thinkin' about it, then he's an atheist (or mebbe an apatheist).

But: if that guy writes books & essays denouncin' god-belief, if his career in some fashion benefits from denouncin' god-belief, then -- at best -- he's as much a religionist as you or me, and -- at worst -- he's an opportunist.

Psychobabble is speculative nonsense, but this rings true, and I think you for the compliments.

I have become my enemy and am a fundamental religionist. Religionist equates to tribal and tribal is in our DNA and is thus quite good.

I label myself a Gnostic Christian.

Regards
DL

No! It doesn't ring true at all. Consider the other side of the coin. How have religions, especially the controlling agents of Christianity, used god as the ultimate opportunity to enrich themselves throughout its entire history. The wealth of the Vatican, even now, is beyond astronomical! The power and wealth paradigm supplanted just about everything Christ supposedly taught according to the gospels. On the other hand denouncing stupid old beliefs is an attempt to bring humans back into balance. Books are written and sold and a huge amount of information is free for those who have the guts to challenge their beliefs. It's only opportunistic when it knowingly caters to falsehood. I would also not call it opportunistic if a genuine believer attempts to publish his principals and makes a few shekels out of it even if it makes no sense in the modern world.

Seems to me: if a guy doesn't think god exists, and doesn't spend a whole whack of time thinkin' about it, then he's an atheist (or mebbe an apatheist).

But: if that guy instead evidences an active, venomous hatred for believers, god-belief, or god, goin' so far as to write books & essays or forum posts denouncin' believers, god-belief, or god, then he's an anti-theist, as invested in god as the theist, as much a believer as the theist.

...there's also the garden-variety anti-christian, motivated by envy (The wealth of the Vatican, even now, is beyond astronomical!).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:04 am ... if that guy instead evidences an active, venomous hatred for believers, god-belief, or god, goin' so far as to write books & essays or forum posts denouncin' believers, god-belief, or god, then he's an anti-theist, as invested in god as the theist, as much a believer as the theist.

That's good, Henry. The only exception might be when, if a theist uses his own beliefs as an argument for some philosophical concept, like human nature being depraved, for example, it might be necessary to address the theistic belief to address the philosophical mistake. Otherwise, I agree, the militant anti-theist is promoting an ideology of sorts.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 1:51 am ...there's also the garden-variety anti-christian, motivated by envy (The wealth of the Vatican, even now, is beyond astronomical!).

I can't fathom how it's possible for a lowly human to get up the moxy to envy what is probably the richest organization on the planet. It's not unusual to envy other people who may be better off or whatever but to envy the Vatican for its wealth and power is nearly equivalent to envying god, his glorious home in heaven and all HIS angel servants! Still what the hell does HE have that I haven't got or shouldn't have?!

Sounds insane, don't it but that's how your comparison comes across.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:34 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:04 am ... if that guy instead evidences an active, venomous hatred for believers, god-belief, or god, goin' so far as to write books & essays or forum posts denouncin' believers, god-belief, or god, then he's an anti-theist, as invested in god as the theist, as much a believer as the theist.

That's good, Henry. The only exception might be when, if a theist uses his own beliefs as an argument for some philosophical concept, like human nature being depraved, for example, it might be necessary to address the theistic belief to address the philosophical mistake.

...you mean like the theistic concept that though atheists can be moral they don't know why they're moral because no higher authority told them why they should be. So while an atheist can be as moral as a theist it's just not the same since the former was never informed while the latter got the message. Atheists got the pirated copy of morality and theists got the licensed one! This can really make an atheist feel good for nothing!

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:35 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:34 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 12:04 am ... if that guy instead evidences an active, venomous hatred for believers, god-belief, or god, goin' so far as to write books & essays or forum posts denouncin' believers, god-belief, or god, then he's an anti-theist, as invested in god as the theist, as much a believer as the theist.

That's good, Henry. The only exception might be when, if a theist uses his own beliefs as an argument for some philosophical concept, like human nature being depraved, for example, it might be necessary to address the theistic belief to address the philosophical mistake.

...you mean like the theistic concept that though atheists can be moral they don't know why they're moral because no higher authority told them why they should be. So while an atheist can be as moral as a theist it's just not the same since the former was never informed while the latter got the message. Atheists got the pirated copy of morality and theists got the licensed one! This can really make an atheist feel good for nothing!

Well, I'm sure that's intended. I hope I made myself clear, that I disagree with the theistic view. I have found atheists, in general, much easier to get along with and less judgemental than the religious, e.g. Bob Ingersoll, Mark Twain, Robert Heinlein, etc.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:58 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:35 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 3:34 am
That's good, Henry. The only exception might be when, if a theist uses his own beliefs as an argument for some philosophical concept, like human nature being depraved, for example, it might be necessary to address the theistic belief to address the philosophical mistake.

...you mean like the theistic concept that though atheists can be moral they don't know why they're moral because no higher authority told them why they should be. So while an atheist can be as moral as a theist it's just not the same since the former was never informed while the latter got the message. Atheists got the pirated copy of morality and theists got the licensed one! This can really make an atheist feel good for nothing!

Well, I'm sure that's intended. I hope I made myself clear, that I disagree with the theistic view. I have found atheists, in general, much easier to get along with and less judgemental than the religious, e.g. Bob Ingersoll, Mark Twain, Robert Heinlein, etc.

I know. Your posts make that clear. My point is if one makes stupid and absurd statements and keeps abiding by it, whether atheist, theist or any of its artificial variations then one deserves to get attacked. In a philosophy forum or any opinion forum, if you spread shit it should be thrown back at you. Respect doesn't follow the right to one's opinion if it negates every fact in the book. There's a limit even to the ludicrous.

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 2:55 pm God given rights. Do you really have any?

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.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!! i'm an Atheist so do not think your God gave me Inalienable Rights - rather i think my DNA as a born human man gave me the same said Rights.

---------- not into the God wars, as long as you affirm my "god given rights" (per me my DNA given rights) - we are on the same side of Right and Rights.

Greatest I am wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 2:55 pm When a right is given to us by governments

Gov never gives rights to men, gov is a social contract/construct via its right to govern via the consent of the governed.

that is the concept of the ideal and my concept of any/all governemts.

of course the real world is made of lesser governments.

sadly.

BTW i affirm inalienable rights for all folks, and to overthrow any gov that nullifies such rights.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:09 pm BTW i affirm inalienable rights for all folks, and to overthrow any gov that nullifies such rights.

Rights to what? What do you think anyone has a right to?

Overthrowing a government is a waste of time. They'll just be another one, and probably worse, to take its place. Government is like fungus, ubiquitous and impossible to extirpate. Just keep it out of your own life and house.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:46 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:09 pm BTW i affirm inalienable rights for all folks, and to overthrow any gov that nullifies such rights.

Rights to what? What do you think anyone has a right to?

Inalienable rights - per written documents are the usual: (usually 3 items - and in order from most basic to less so - IMO)

1. Right to Live (not to be killed by other men)
2. Right to Liberty (note a slave - though a slave had the right of the above - so had a partial inalienble right - the right to live (but still a slave, so denied #2 liberty) - yes there were "slave laws" in the South - from the 1820-1860 (basically animal crualty laws) - and so it was illegal to kill your slave - per the Laws of the land - enforcement? well that is another matter, i doubt they were enforced very often (I don't know, just assuming they were not - but yes there were laws for slavers, and it was illegal to kill or beat beyond measure your slave (as you horse/etc). just sayin here, we (US ahd laws on the matter)
3. Property (Declaration of Ind susbtitutes this with Happiness) - the lowest inalienable right per conventional understanding.

there other rights - via the US constitutions (9th amendment) implied but not stated (ie. right to associate with any friends you wish to, marry, Jury nuillification power (to ignore the law - even rule against the law in question (i.e. as a juror you know the accussed is guilty, but rule him innocent because via your consicence you think the law he violated is immoral/unjust - so rule "innocent")

per trivia, the few times (only time?) -the US 9th was fought in the courts was with the Virgina vs Loving (in 68 - 29 of the 50 states made it illegal for interacial marrage - 9th was used as an argument for the right of association (anyone can choose their friends/wifes/etc - sadly we cannot choose our relatives - lol).

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:46 am Overthrowing a government is a waste of time.

agreed, revolution (destruction 9 out of 10 times = worse outcome - i.e its easy to destroy, hard to build)

BTW there is no Right to Revolt in the US Constitution - however there is in at least one State Constitution New Hampshire (and i pretty sure in one other at least - Massacusets(sp).). i.e. the right to revolt. "live free or die". lol


BTW there are both Rights and Powers, per the US Judiciary (though John Jay - fist SC justice/and i think also President Madison claimed Jury Nullification is a RIGHT...........since that time (ie. the judiciary has been at war with Nullifcation rights for 2 centuries now...........today its viewed as a "POWER" not a "Right", but fully "allowed" though not "legal" (Jay/Madison are spinning in thier graves - rightfully so too!)

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:46 am They'll just be another one, and probably worse, to take its place. Government is like fungus, ubiquitous and impossible to extirpate. Just keep it out of your own life and house.

fight the good fight and challenge authority - within original Constitution's intent - at all times!

give them an inch and they will take a yard!


----------------

BTW as an aside, NY SC only 2 yrs ago affirmed the Right to Trial by Combat.

since America left the UK in 1783, and the UK made Trial by Combat illegal in 1819.

just a little trivia.

so trial by combat is legal in America to date. since 1783 to today.

https://www.youtube.com/user/dgeer21/videos


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCc-0Yp ... PTpSQ5uo-Q

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:22 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:46 am

gaffo wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:09 pm BTW i affirm inalienable rights for all folks, and to overthrow any gov that nullifies such rights.

Rights to what? What do you think anyone has a right to?

Inalienable rights - per written documents are the usual: (usually 3 items - and in order from most basic to less so - IMO)

1. Right to Live (not to be killed by other men)
2. Right to Liberty (note a slave - though a slave had the right of the above - so had a partial inalienble right - the right to live (but still a slave, so denied #2 liberty) - yes there were "slave laws" in the South - from the 1820-1860 (basically animal crualty laws) - and so it was illegal to kill your slave - per the Laws of the land - enforcement? well that is another matter, i doubt they were enforced very often (I don't know, just assuming they were not - but yes there were laws for slavers, and it was illegal to kill or beat beyond measure your slave (as you horse/etc). just sayin here, we (US ahd laws on the matter)
3. Property (Declaration of Ind susbtitutes this with Happiness) - the lowest inalienable right per conventional understanding.

This is what I agree to:

1. It is wrong for anyone to intentionally take the life of another human being (except in defense).
2. It is wrong to interfere in anyone else's life in any way that limits how they choose to live their life.
3. It is wrong to seek anything one has not acquired by producing it themselves or purchasing it with what they have produced in willing exchange with other producers.

No one's life, freedom, or property is in any danger from those who live by these principles.

This is what is disagree with:
1. That anyone is obligated to provide anyone else with protection of their life.
2. That anyone is obligated to prevent others form oppressing others.
3. That anyone is obligated to provide protection of anyone else's property.

The problem with the idea of rights is they imply one has a claim on what they have not earned or produced themselves, just because they exist, which automatically means someone else is supposed to provide them. The concept of rights is self-contradictory. You cannot demand that one's life, freedom, and property be protected by violating individual's life, freedom, and property to provide that protection. If that protection is to be provided by a government, someone is going to have to pay for it, whether they choose to or not. So much for a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:22 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 1:46 am There'll just be another one, and probably worse, to take its place. Government is like fungus, ubiquitous and impossible to extirpate. Just keep it out of your own life and house.

fight the good fight and challenge authority ...

Defy authority, but don't tell them your doing it.

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:22 am so trial by combat is legal in America to date. since 1783 to today.

Civilization has made little progress.

...an event not remarkable for RC (cuz he does that regularly). On the other hand, Dubious, hittin' the mark twice in the same thread, well, that's worthy. Cherish it, buddy, cuz you earned it.

Now, down to business (me amendin' myself).

Somewhere, recently, in-forum, I said sumthin' along the lines of we do the enemy's work for him when we unnecessarily categorize. I think, in this thread, I'm guilty of categorizin' unnecessarily. The base definition for atheist (one lacking belief in a god) suffices. We do the man a disservice in dissectin' his perspective rather than takin' him at his word.

Now, that's not to say the atheist can't also be a putz, a bad egg, an opportunist, cuz he can be; or he might be reasonable, decent, and fair-minded (I don't subscribe to the the atheist can't be moral or has no reason to be moral schticks. Every man has a compass no matter what he believes about the world or himself. He chooses to pay attention to that compass or he chooses to ignore it, and that choice ain't got nuthin' to do with his belief in a Creator).

So (and this here is the important part, so pay attention): mebbe instead of givin' so much weight to the words we ought to simply make an account of the man.

Take friendship as an example...

Joe is your buddy. You know this cuz he tells you so all the time. He's a hoot to hang out with.

But, any time shit hits the fan, Joe ain't available to lend a hand or offer support.

Lou, on the other hand, is a stick in the mud. He's not much fun to be around, and you sometimes wonder if he's truly your pal till trouble comes your way. Trouble comes a'knockin' and Lou is there (to help you move that piano, to sit with you when your wife dies, or to help you bury an enemy deep, not one question asked).

Words: fairly cheap.

Character: rare.

The famous atheists mentioned in-thread: me, I'm a lot less interested in their non-belief than their character.

So: who among those fellas was, is, a good man?

Dubious wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 10:14 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Jun 27, 2020 1:51 am ...there's also the garden-variety anti-christian, motivated by envy (The wealth of the Vatican, even now, is beyond astronomical!).

I can't fathom how it's possible for a lowly human to get up the moxy to envy what is probably the richest organization on the planet. It's not unusual to envy other people who may be better off or whatever but to envy the Vatican for its wealth and power is nearly equivalent to envying god, his glorious home in heaven and all HIS angel servants! Still what the hell does HE have that I haven't got or shouldn't have?!

Sounds insane, don't it but that's how your comparison comes across.

Seems to me: if a man is busy livin' his life, and is satisfied with the direction he has in livin', then he hasn't the time or the interest in indulgin' envy (such a sad little feelin' evidenced only by sad little people).