I have yet to see you rail against any of the obvious abuses of power that plauge our current world - even as you rail against religious authority. Why is that? Why are you more concerened about religious Crusades from a thousand years ago than the current tyranny, torture, and deprivation that effects millions of North Koreans? They are atheists, but I woul bet if they were Christians your focus on North Korea would be ... unavoidable. Really, as you talk about the fundamental incompatability of religion and atheism, its natural need to attack rather than co-exist .... You are the one threatened? By realizing people will fight back? blink, blink Really? Right, it is a strawman to state that you should treat a woman like a human being first and a woman second. It is strawman to state that not being in control of our sexual desires is a bad thing. Interesting rebuttal. Where are thise attributes spelled out in your world view of resistance and logic? No where. In fact, they are NEVER talked about by atheists on this forum. The last time I spelled hem out, you dismissed them as 'happy talk' - when in fact they are critically important aspects of humanity. That is why. And the source of atheism moral thoughs and teaching .... which has no doctrine or instructional basis ... is what? You need religion to spell it out for you, if only so you can rebut it. That is what having no doctrine really means. If you think I have misrepresented your stances, that you actually are in love with religion for example, please spell it out. No, an atheist with a chip on his shoulder and purposely avoiding the lessons of grace, sacrifice, selflessness, compassion, equality, etc. that are laced in that sacrifice and the in the tecahing you merely wave a hand at. Try reading the Bible. The only thing in the NT you would disgree with is the concept of God. Lets put it too you this way. The world of Rome, brutal, unlawful, unequal, temptuous, corrupt, unjust, and wrathful is about to undergo a fundamental change in which reason, justice, equality, law, rights, education, etc. are going to begin to emerge. You choose. And your father, who is making his living by by pedaling shoddy goods by keeping competitors at bay by bribing corrupt officials forbid you to choose that new path? That is what Jesus was referring to. A choice of loyalty, to principle and honor, or to family. You are telling me that you could not figure this out? Or that you merely did not read it? Is it? I have a challenge for you. I would like you to visit of nearby abbey and talk with the monks who live there. What Jesus laid out was difficult, not impossible. But those things that are worth having are worth striving for. Do you think you should experience the triumph of winning the Tour De France without the hours of pain and disciplined training to reach that goal? If all you want are easy things? Then you will find that many experiences are denied you. The only politics I see is in the excuses to avoid a difficult challenge by claiming it is politics .... with the intent of underming what you see as a political opponent.
You are argueing as if you know what war is, when clearly you do not. You think rolling into a village with heavily armored vehicles, artillery, attack helicopters, fighter jets screaming over head, and hundreds of well trained soldiers armed to the teeth and capable of coordinating those assets to absolute devestation is not a very deliberate attempt to IMPOSE authority? You think authority in that case comes from the law? And here is the key point. All of that can be used for horrific purpose. We could just as easily use that to commit Mai Lai's on a massive scale. There is literally no force that can stop us from doing so. You know what keeps it in check? Honor. Widsom. Integrity. Compassion. None of those things are terribly scientific are they? Those who abuse authority are removed from honorable organizations that bestow authority. And none of that makes religion compulsive does it? Yep, and you can just as easily say, as you are now, "that is bunk," shut the book and walk away. (Assuming of course that you have bothered to open it, and many atheists have not). God is not going to kill you for that, nor indeed does he? But your fear of hell you don't even believe is compulsive - so compulsive that you are not right this moment reading the Bible? Like I said, the only thing you find disagreeable in the Bible is the concept of God. Tell that to the Iraqis who existed under Saddam. THose that exist in North Korea, Iran. And yet, any of those individuals can reject the aw and become a criminal can they not? And some of the 'rules' are in place to prevent individuals from irrationally allowing their own best interests to upset society. Why would we NOT want to run monopolies? And people will if left to their own devises. So government forces them to break up. Government, even by consensus is coersive. It has to be. Or, maybe we should just eliminate the police? Agh, that is not a rebuttal to anything in the Bible. And if something has over a billion adherents, how is it meant for the benefit of only a few? Just curious. You are projecting rather than studying again. Yawn. More atheists doctrine that is not really doctrine. All this assumes that you have the nature of God you do not even believe in all figured out. That is a hell of an assumption to be making. Agh, so now, commandments to charity, selflessness, etc. are actually money laundering schemes? What happens to people who attempt to milk religion just for money? What happens to anyone who milks a legitimate system just for money? Madoff ring any bells? Oh, you are not concerned with the authoritarian tendancies of religion? And these being the WORST thing that can happen, well .... where is your worry about North Korea? Your appeal to atheism's rationality to undermine that atheistic absolutism? Do you think we are blind to this? You tell me. You are saying that all cohersion is bad. We are saying that it is necessary to maintain our society and, in many cases, to maintain what is right. You were very clearly disagreeing with TWO posters making this case. Lets be clear, God has asked me to do something: defend the weak and innocent. I will leave you with the REALITY of what God asks rather than the possibility.
Hey Modus: With all this long-winded stuff you have going with "Neutral", I can see where you would overlook a couple of simple questions within a much shorter post. Can you please answer the questions posted at the following location: http://www.politicalforum.com/3915380-post117.html
We recognize a difference between being ruled by personalities, and being ruled by law. Law of course always has its locus in some mind or other; I'm not suggesting that you can have law in complete abstraction from persons. But law functions in a manner highly akin to language; nowhere do you find law existing suspended somewhere, independent of the judgement of intelligent beings - just as you nowhere encounter a language that cannot be traced back a certain group of speakers. So law is not 'impersonal' in that sense. Rather, it is impersonal in the sense that it is not the invention of just one person - just as the meanings of words in a language are not determined by just one person. Laws, just like the meanings of words, have an independence from the mind of any given single intelligent personality. Laws, like language, are trans-subjective or inter-subjective, and in that sense are objective and impersonal. The authority of law is trans- or inter-subjective authority. It follows then that while we all can contribute to the fashioning of laws, and to the elaboration of language, no single personality can create these things, invent them whole. Because that eviscerates the very concept of language, and law. If all law is made up by just one personality, then by definition there is no law - there is just what that lone personality makes up, until they decide to change their mind. So, in order for there to be genuine law, it again must have trans-subjective authority - from the perspective of any one given personality, it will have 'impersonal' authority. No one can be above the law.
In other words: laying aside all the long explanation, what you are meaning to say is "we make our own law(s)"..? If there are no written set of laws, then there is no law. Therefore your claim to "impersonal law" is a fictitious labeling of something that does not exist. It is purely imaginative and for all intent and purposes, that freedom from an existing written law allows all of you to be a law unto yourselves. CHAOS then would be your law, as there is no ORDER.
Oh, spare me. If you're going to put unqualified trust in an authority, it'd better be because you have a d*mn good reason, not mere happytalk "implicit trust." So, has the god you trust in ever snapped to at your request? Evidently you are talking about the kind of trust forged in combat. That's all well and good for its purposes - but it is folly to import a military ethos of obedience and loyalty into more everyday political deliberations. I simply think you haven't thought it through. That relationship is not a peer relationship. It is one, to put it bluntly, of master and slave. An essentially political relationship. Politics is necessary; existential slavery is not. No... only in very recent times have we seen the emergence of genuinely popular nonbelief. The thing that really should concern you is not ideologues like me, but the rising tide of de facto atheism of religious indifference and nonaffiliation. The militants are the tip of spear coming at you; but the indifferent are your own troops, melting away. To me the point is very current, and always pertinent: arguing against tyranny. Just the other post you were boasting of how we're the most hated segment of society. Certainly, in America at least, there is significant social stigma attached to avowed atheism. But in general, it's true, we're safer now (at least outside the Middle East) than we have ever been in history. Not in a formal debate, it's not. The thesis is a resolution, a positive proposition. Actually it is not hard, but like most folks you don't understand the protocols of a formal debate. Somebody is obligated to go first, or the argument will dissolve into each side insisting the other side has the burden of proof. The one obligated to go first is the one making the positive, nonobvious claim. The proposition "God exists" exactly fits that bill. I don't disagree with this. It is all still consistent with freedom of conscience. Again, my target is not people but the worthiness of the ideas they have in their heads. Modernizing forces underlay both the rise of tolerance, and of avowed atheism. Imperceptibly and unbeknownst to itself, Christianity underwent changes in the 16th and 17th centuries, that ushered it into a post-echanted world. Those changes made it radically different from the church of Medieval Christendom. The whole idea of "religious tolerance" was a radical idea, one not possible without the scorched-earth exhaustion of the Wars of Religion, and the proto-Enlightenment shifts in thought amongst the European elilte. Right - in the same fundamental way as the Papacy conducted crusades against heresy. I do. And I've studied enough history, to know that there's no precedent for what we see happening now - the emergence of widespread, popular unbelief. You need to brush up on your history. The U.S. colonies were not founded on religious tolerance. And the separation of church and state did need to elaborated, as a self-conscious formal principle, in order to stave off confessional violence in the U.S. True. But that protection does not extend to it being exempt from criticism. I don't think it's flourishing. The rise of cafeteria Christianity, just presages mass disengagement with the faith. When you can tailor your religion to your consumer preferences, you don't have a religion that challenges - or inspires - any more.
It's understandable, that if you believe might makes right, as you do (talk about a formula for chaos!), you also deny the possibility (and value) of self-government. Do you see, Neutral? The kind of meme we see here on display in this post, is exhibit A of the point that John Adams makes: Speaking of the militant Christians of his day, he remarks that they would "whip and crop and pillory and roast. If they could, they would." If they could, they would. It's politics, Neutral. And we fail to confront it, at our peril.
No! your presumption regarding my view of self government is merely what you perceive is in my mind. I very much long for a society wherein each man and woman are able to assert and enforce the 'law' as seen by each man and woman.... as long as those activities are in accord with a defined set of standards. One such standard would be the freedom of religion without concern that someone is going to subject me to ridicule, harassment, etc, as a result of my particular flavor of religious belief. You are also wrong in the analysis "as you do (talk about a formula for chaos),". By the very definition of chaos, there can be no formula, for wherein there is a formula, there is also a system of 'order', thus alleviating any chaos. Finally, in your closing paragraph, you attempt to be derisive of my comments by using those comments as a tool to potentially sway the opinion of another person on this forum. Thus labeling yourself as the victim in this discussion. Earlier you commented that my views were "pernicious". Is that labeling not also a form of political agenda? Especially when you include in that labeling that those 'pernicious' memes must be .... what was your inference??? done away with????? ("[unequivocally resisted]") Yes, it is politics. So is Atheism. So where is this law that is supposed to be 'impersonal law'? Where is it written? How does it apply to everyone? who wrote this 'impersonal law'? Please answer those questions.
Your deliberate misrepresentation was originally of my position... which has now extended to my criticism of your dishonesty. I know what political and ideological positions you state/reveal in your posts, and respond accordingly. News Flash: as our sexualities are a tangled mix of biological instincts mediated by various cultural conventions in flux, we are ALWAYS (re)constructed by such forces one way or another. Question is... why should we prefer one range of internal/external capabilities/possibilities over another, under what conditions and circumstances, and why? Your insistence of dragging this discussion into false dichotomies... ... illuminates little of such complexities such as sexuality. Or more accurately, three steps off track... and into a ditch. Your frames and terms do not represent the 'rules of logic', but merely your self-serving presuppositions. Again, fat chance. You have been demonstratively engaging straw men from the beginning; to manufacture a claim that I have shifted goal posts only piles on more intellectual dishonesty on your part. A vapid 'riposte'... how cute. Ummm... no dear, this is allllll you. Not when I have no obligation to bear such burdens... as you do. Such as?
I said "your faith", not just faith, Incorporeal. Neutral seems to not only hate that there needn't be any particular cause not to adhere to Christianity, he also projects that hate unto people who do not adhere to it.
Mine, Yours, His, Hers, what difference would that make to the questions that I presented. My questions also did not pertain to any particular person such as "Neutral", so your presenting the comments about Neutral within the response to me is only a straw-man to distract from the questions that I posed. "How can 'faith' be absent? Does 'faith' occupy a particular space in the temporal world where it normally resides and has for some unknown reason vacated that known position?"
I know it's futile replying to you but for the sake of common decency, I have of course never said that religious people are horrific. You're projecting. Yes, it is obvious that you want the absence of your faith to be a faith so that you can rip into people for their faith choice. Again, you're simply projecting your own ideas unto others.
Specificity. Your question did not pertain to any particular kind of person or faith but my statement did. Ask your question but do not present it as if it related to my post.
Specificity: Fine! Your faith, just as you previously stated. Apply the questions relative to "your faith". "Your" meaning "Freeware". Where exactly is the Faith belonging to "Freeware" normally residing when it is not 'absent'?
I didn't. I said unqualified trust in EARNED Authority. I.e. some leaders can be trusted implicitly BECAUSE THEY EARN THAT HONOR. God being one of them. Without trust organization grind to a halt. And quite frankly, if you require that you be utterly convinced of everything before you do it, you will not only be completely outdone or out competed by those organizations that are build ona foundation of honor and trust, you will be paralyzed with indecision in cases that fluid, ill structured, and unclear. Seriously, GEN Petreaus is a man I trust implicitely. If he ordered me to attack a village, even if it seemed counter-productive in the short term, I trust that at his level he knows more and would execute. I watched GEN Petreaus silenate between JAM special groups and regular malitia, and then slowly rip that aspect of the organization apart, while pulling the rest into the political process that resulted in the imposition of rule of law over the previous territories controlled by JAM and a reduction in violence by literal orders of magnitude. That trust was earned, that trust is necessary, and God says that trust is a good thing - central to knowing and understanding his wisdom. And based on seeing it in practice with guys like GEN Petreaus, God is right. Yep. I have had prayers answered in profound ways. I have had situations remedied in way so perfectly that they have been utterly shocking. In one case, struggling through a very difficult period, I prayed to God for help and simply opened my hear to need. The situation got better. However, it was not until years later that I realized not just the empathy that the conditions had bread in me, but how that challenge had pushed me and caused me to leran and develop in a manner that made further challenges and greater achievement possible. For just a moment, I could see the unbroken chain of events leading to that realization and the utter perfection in the response to my prayer. Utter perfection. Things like that cause you to rock back on your heels when you finally realize them. Now, having had prayers answered perfectly, why would I not trust this God? Who says the only people I trust implicitely are warriors? Father Joe pops into mind. I am not Catholic, my best frend is. The priest that married him and his wife is one of the most remarkable human beings I have ever met. His respect for the my friend and his wife was so great, that with late stage canacer and virses that created open sores over most of his body, he nevertheless officiated over their wedding, performing a high mass, with nary a complaint. By the end of the wedding he was profoundly exhausted. Never a complaint. Never a word of selfishness. I walked away from that event with a man I would follow anywhere. And from a warrior, there is no higher compliment. No, it is leader subordinate. A slave cannot disagree with his master. A subordinate can. I can reject God. Why would I? Why would I reject a God who love, who is filled with compassion, wisdom, and who balances my individual needs with the greater needs of humanity .... indeed the universe. Why would ANYONE reject that?
The only problem is that both sides in this case HAVE a burden of proof. One side may go first, that hardly removes the burden of proof from the rebuttal does it. And you are claiming something aren't you? You are claiming that God DOES NOT exist. That is a positive claim, a conclusive claim. If you are unsure? You are agnostic. You aren't. And please, spare me the drivel about merely not believing, I have hear it and consider that entire premise to be both utterly absurd, logically, and little more than a tenet of faith to avoid having to acknowledge that atheism rests on faith. Once again, please take issue with the ACTUAL teaching of Jesus. Those are the ideas in our heads. The peace of Westphalia. Secularism and religiosu tolerance were in place well before the perniciosu rise of modern atheism. It is NOT your doing, and you have no right to the mantel. much less to deny that mantel to us, of those who fought and died to bring it to us. Religious tolerance OBVIOUSLY requires various religions. Running around saying all religions are irrational and that atheism cannot co-exist with religion .... THAT would be the opposite of religious tolerance. Interesting that you seek to claim that particular mantel. Is that what the Pope is doing now? What did Stalin do? Again, this misplaced focus on religious tryanny alone is telling. You are not concerened with tryanny, but with finding excuses to bludgeon religion. It is what Chris Hitchens does to, and it is the reason that his works, like so many atheists works, are not considered history - because they fail basic intellectual processes to ensure accuracy and objectivity - like peer review. The works are thus little more than works of fiction or propoganda, nothing more. Russian Revolution, Marxism, French Revolution, Cultural Revolution, Cave men. Really? Yep, the pikgrams came here to establish their own ways while different religious sects went down South. It was tolerance they were seeking and it was toleranec they would enshrine. Once again, you seem to want to twist everything and anything into the worst possible conclusion. Criticism nevertheless requires accuracy. Otherwise it is either whinning or (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing - not criticism. Then you tell me how I, and others, have made the leap from hard core atheism to faith? What, do we lack intellectual strength? Is that what you get out of these debates? Airborne Rangers are weak people? So tell me, why when I was young but educated was I atheist? Now, after travelling the world, with MORE edcuation, experience, and understanding, have I totally reversed, and am indeed ashamed of, my earlier positions? Just the belief in no God? There are atheists out there that do embody this. the ones that run around crapping on people based on their faith? That is not intellect, and what you see as a rise, I see as a emotional high point before an inevitable backlash. Please referrence the Middle East. People don't like being disrespected. And eventually, when this is all people see coming out of atheism .... you'll be left with people that are essentially nothing more than trolls. Take a look around Modus. There are a few good atheists out there. You yourself are obviously neither stupid and are very passionate about your atheism (I disagree with it, and hope to take some of the anti-religious zeal out of it). How would you rate the sudden appearence of Montoya? Who is essentially running around saying, "I am smart, everyone else is stupid!" We routinely hear acerbic atheists, often making wildly rediculous claims themselves, "You don;t understand science," usually right before I run rings around them in the field of actual science. You think that is dynamic behavior that rallies people in a positive manner? that is what the banner of modern atheism is attracting. At some point, people that venture out in the world and meet .... real scientists, realize they really don;t have everything figured out to the extent they thought. That modern militancy in atheism is nothing more than a short lived parade that will result in a backlash they may undermine atheism for decades to come. It'll never go away, but already, we see the "Most hated" status applied directly as a result of the rise of this behavior. It's Biblical: we reap what we sew.
How man times have I presented this logical proof? Why do you keep asking for it over and over and over and over and over .... etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ? Its yoru circular logic. Atheism is the only rational choice posiible. because clearly we see ... that we don't have a burden of support and our conclusions rest upon nothing as result! Yeah. That's be why any ACTUAL practitioner of logic, in cluding the fellow atheists sighted in the proof, acknowledge the burden to support a conclusion. Your turn to ACTUALLY make a logical proof. Such is the rationalization of modern atheism.
Modus: Please take a look at this thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/187566-no-rapture-whats-excuse-time-idiots-4.html I listed that part specifically because it forshadows what will come if atheism continues on its present course. The angrier the vitrolic comments, the more modern atheism is going to careen toward the Tea Party fringe movements. Anger and derison breed backlash, they undermine what are otherwise valid positions, and teh course that modern atheism has chosen to collect coverts is a short term scheme that will have profound reprecussions over the long term.
Your original statement: "Nothing is going to make you immune to the fact that your faith can be absent for no reason at all, is it?" My last posting: "Specificity: Fine! Your faith, just as you previously stated. Apply the questions relative to "your faith". "Your" meaning "Freeware". Where exactly is the Faith belonging to "Freeware" normally residing when it is not 'absent'? " You have presented lies in order to evade answering the question.
Because you have shown absolutely NOTHING that would validate trust in this wholly alien quasi-thing called a 'god', sufficiently verifying 'his' motives, identity, and interactive correspondence with the world; instead, your pseudo-argument eats its own ass in question-begging and hand-waving, all with prejudicial, presumption-loaded emotive glee. Pure madness.
Long for this, eh? I bet you do. I've heard traditionalist Muslims say the same thing. The true motive behind wanting to be immune from criticism, is the desire to impose your beliefs on others, the moment you get the chance. The fact is, is that for 95% of history, people like you put people like me in the stocks, on the rack, on the stake. We know, from bitter experience, where your worldview leads, if it is not put in check by secular forces. Do you really think our memories are so short? It's called civil law. It is written in our legislatures. It applies to everyone under its jurisdiction. And it is subject to our amendment. It is law, in other words - not doctrine.
Questioning the integrity of my word. OK. Tit for tat. The imposition of my beliefs on you is no worse than you bringing into a religious forum, subject matter that you admit is not 'religious' for the purpose of harassing those that do desire to stay on the subject of religion without ridicule from those who claim a disdain toward any religion. Tit for tat. You bring your beliefs into this forum, and we meet you on the streets and throw ours right back at you. And the saga continues. Tit for tat again. How old is Atheism? How long has this battle been going on? Playing the 'poor me' role again. Did I personally have anything to do with those alleged atrocities of the past? No! Yet I receive the blame. Shame on me. Civil law is not "impersonal law". You spoke specifically about "impersonal law". Now you want to change its name in the middle of the stream? So what you are admitting to is that your original statement pertaining to 'impersonal law' was a deceptive maneuver ... fabricating a baited subject? Yes, Civil law applies to everyone, therefore making that civil law 'personal' to everyone that is subject to that law. It is not "Impersonal". Laws protecting the rights of this group or that group, show clearly that laws are not 'impersonal'. Are you a 'person' within the jurisdiction of your country? "doctrine Law Definition n A widely accepted legal tenet." "tenet (ten′it) noun a principle, doctrine, or belief held as a truth, as by some group" It is equivalent to a doctrine... if you and other members of a group hold it as a 'truth'. See here: http://thesaurus.yourdictionary.com/tenet
You can't be serious. You really think it's illegitimate for atheists to participate in a religious discussion forum - ? Why don't you speak to the Moderators, then, about getting my posts removed? Evidently you didn't pay much attention to what I previously said on this subject. Here I'll reproduce it: We recognize a difference between being ruled by personalities, and being ruled by law. Law of course always has its locus in some mind or other; I'm not suggesting that you can have law in complete abstraction from persons. But law functions in a manner highly akin to language; nowhere do you find law existing suspended somewhere, independent of the judgement of intelligent beings - just as you nowhere encounter a language that cannot be traced back a certain group of speakers. So law is not 'impersonal' in that sense. Rather, it is impersonal in the sense that it is not the invention of just one person - just as the meanings of words in a language are not determined by just one person. Laws, just like the meanings of words, have an independence from the mind of any given single intelligent personality. Laws, like language, are trans-subjective or inter-subjective, and in that sense are objective and impersonal. The authority of law is trans- or inter-subjective authority. It follows then that while we all can contribute to the fashioning of laws, and to the elaboration of language, no single personality can create these things, invent them whole. Because that eviscerates the very concept of language, and law. If all law is made up by just one personality, then by definition there is no law - there is just what that lone personality makes up, until they decide to change their mind. So, in order for there to be genuine law, it again must have trans-subjective authority - from the perspective of any one given personality, it will have 'impersonal' authority. No one can be above the law.
Lost the previous version of this reply. So this is abridged. If by that you mean God is accountable to us, then I'm all for that, Neutral. I'm saying that the virtues of fierce loyalty and cheerful obedience that you so extol, are rooted in a military ethos - not that they only apply to warriors. The context of the battlefield - a context of crisis and live physical threat - does not translate well into everyday political deliberations. Your friend Father Joe was clearly a fine man. Nothing about the atheist worldview prevents us from recognizing that. On the contrary, a slave can, in his heart if not anywhere else, defy the master - and prevail. That is not possible in the case of divine domination. The atheism of those movements was ideological, not cultural. It was a top-down development. What we see today is a cultural transformation - people deciding, one at a time, to set down the faith of their parents. It's quite similar, really, to how Christianity got started in the first place. And the whole process is abetted by outspoken evangelizers like myself. There's no need to make them here, because we're all of the same mind on that subject. Instead, My concern is with the contradiction between belief in monotheism, and belief in popular sovereignty. Monotheism is essentially a metaphysical justification for political tyranny... and people like myself are trying to prod people from averting their gaze from this painful fact.
ROFL!!!! Actually I just finsihed planting some tomatoes and am about to the walk the dog. I think you are mistaking excitement and the sarcastic demolition of line of thought as anger. I assure you I am fine and dandy, and looking forward to eating the tomatos and fresh basil I planted at a later date. Life is good )
