Up Front: Oh, God
339 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
Blackstone's commentary on the connection between justice, happiness, and morality:
As therefore the creator is a being, not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness, he has been pleased so to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter to inquire after and pursue the rule of right, but only our own self-love, that universal principle of action. For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things, as some have vainly surmised; but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, "that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness." This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law.
-
andin, in reply to
For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter
WTF? If you are religious please state it plainly NOW.
-
UglyTruth, in reply to
If it’s not practical, it’s not spiritual.
Avoiding the pointy things and the burny things of the afterlife isn't practical?
Plain english please
The natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness can be restated as life, liberty, and the pursuit of justice (or ethical behaviour).
-
WTF? If you are religious please state it plainly NOW.
How do you differentiate between a person of religion and a rational theist?
Religion is often corrupted for political purposes.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Avoiding the pointy things and the burny things of the afterlife isn’t practical?
Correct.
The natural rights
Natural rights are a highly contentious idea. This may be hard to accept to anyone who has had to swear that they find certain truths about them self-evident. But unfortunately "self-evident" is usually a way of invoking no reason at all. You can swear away to them as much as you like, but that doesn't convince me of anything. I never found Hobbes, Locke or Paine very convincing on this particular score.
It seems that "natural law" is most frequently invoked to assert opinions about morality without justification, and it's most often done by religious people who find the idea of a morally neutral universe hard to even fathom.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
How do you differentiate between a person of religion and a rational theist?
Personally, I wouldn’t.
ETA: Which is to say, one is a subset of the other. Not all religious people are rational, but all theists are religious.
-
UglyTruth, in reply to
Correct.
Because you don't believe that there is such a thing as an afterlife?
Natural rights are a highly contentious idea.
Like the idea of having a conscience? Both are contentious ideas for the NZ state.
My focus here is natural rights as they exist within the common law. The state doesn't acknowledge the source of natural rights, so this argument could reduce to arguing for the state's factually false position vs the documentary sources of the common law.
-
andin, in reply to
How do you differentiate between a person of religion and a rational theist?
Dont you worry about that I can. So your answer? Oh rational theist?
You arrived at this position how? What theism are you rational in? -
I'd prefer a rational theist to an irrational atheist.
-
UglyTruth, in reply to
I'd prefer a rational theist to an irrational atheist.
Denying that a divine being exists is pretty irrational, considering that the denial implies omniscience on the part of the denier.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Because you don’t believe that there is such a thing as an afterlife?
I don't think you know anything about it, even if it does exist, which I doubt.
Like the idea of having a conscience? Both are contentious ideas for the NZ state.
No, nothing like that. Consciences clearly do exist. Natural rights, maybe not.
My focus here is natural rights as they exist within the common law
Their existence is contentious.
The state doesn’t acknowledge the source of natural rights
Sensible state. Why acknowledge the source of something that might not even exist?
Denying that a divine being exists is pretty irrational, considering that the denial implies omniscience on the part of the denier.
Denying aliens have taken over your brain and turned you loose as an amusing joke follows the same logic. Do you deny that has happened? If so, why? Rinse and repeat the same question, but with the magic poo-monster of Asgardtrothianosis.
-
Moz, in reply to
Denying that a divine being exists is pretty irrational, considering that the denial implies omniscience on the part of the denier.
I have yet to meet a theist who limits themselves to that level of belief. Once you get into the details of what constitutes a divine being and how one would qualify as such it's usually pretty easy to say very firmly "I believe that cannot exist". After a while it becomes easier to say "I have yet to hear of a divine being that can exist, nor can I imagine such a thing existing as would satisfy any definition of same". Which is fairly strong atheism in most people's books.
I mean, obviously we can rule out omniscience and omnipresence as either meaningful or plausible traits, but never both. "weak omnipresence" is trivial, but also useless - God is everywhere, but can act nowhere. So any definition of "divine being" that requires either, I'm happy to say I'm certain such a thing cannot exist.
-
Once you get into the details of what constitutes a divine being and how one would qualify as such it's usually pretty easy to say very firmly "I believe that cannot exist".
Straw man. Stating a belief is different to an assertion of fact.
So any definition of "divine being" that requires either, I'm happy to say I'm certain such a thing cannot exist.
Another straw man: you are limiting the scope of your opinion.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
I’d prefer a rational theist to an irrational atheist.
or as Tom Waits put it:
"I'd rather have a bottle in front me
than a frontal lobotomy...";- )
-
Sensible state. Why acknowledge the source of something that might not even exist?
Because in the context of common law it has been acknowledged to exist - the state is not telling the truth when it asserts otherwise. If you tell people that common law and case law are equivalent terms whens you are aware of the facts then you are lying, regardless of whether you are an atheist or not.
Denying aliens have taken over your brain and turned you loose as an amusing joke follows the same logic. Do you deny that has happened? If so, why?
Because of Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is that reality is an ordered system, your hypothetical example has no purpose and is therefore less probable than the explanation of the purpose as being the disclosure of politically inconvenient truths.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Another straw man:
-
Paul Campbell, in reply to
or as Tom Waits put it:
“I’d rather have a bottle in front me
than a frontal lobotomy…”or variously W C Fields/Fred Allen/Dorothy Parker before him
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Dorothy Parker before him
I always liked her:
"If you want to see what God thinks of money,
just look at the people he gave it to..." -
Rich Lock, in reply to
NOT THE BEES!
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Because in the context of common law it has been acknowledged to exist – the state is not telling the truth when it asserts otherwise.
The state has the right in this country to entirely redefine the law. If it doesn't want to make the source of promises something that people in large numbers will not find in the least bit frightening or compelling, then it is very sensible to offer an alternative. There is no difference in the way the different kinds of oaths are treated whatsoever. You can swear to almighty God, you can swear on your mother's grave, you can swear on your heart bursting, you can swear to a court. It's all the same. Because no one else can ever know about the sincerity of your oath, whether you actually care whether God is offended, or your mum rolls over in her grave, or that you actually think your heart might burst, or that you might just be gambling that the court will not discover your lies. None of that matters. What matters is that having sworn, any lies that are discovered are treated more severely. The purpose of the oath is to discourage lies. Who the oath is to is utterly, utterly irrelevant. In the past a lot of people were scared of lying to God (or at least being seen to), and felt no strange incongruity at swearing to Him, since they believed He exists. But this is not the case for a huge number of people now. So the custom has changed. Get over it.
your hypothetical example has no purpose..
No, I told you the purpose. The aliens are making fun of you. They chortle in their amazing ships at your every utterance. Only an omniscient person could be sure that it is not so. Are you, in fact, omniscient?
-
The state has the right in this country to entirely redefine the law.
No, it doesn't. Effective legislation is a function of sovereignty, and the NZ parliament is not sovereign.
http://wiki.actsinjunction.info/Sovereignty
http://www.actsinjunction.info/nzsov.htmlNo, I told you the purpose. The aliens are making fun of you.
The thing about aliens is that they're alien. You are ascribing human qualities to the unknown, which is why I said there was no purpose.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
You are ascribing human qualities to the unknown, which is why I said there was no purpose
Yup, it's my story. I get to define these aliens how I like. It's on you to show why they don't exist, in a way that doesn't also refute your own imaginary friend. If you're still keen on asserting the irrationality of refusing to believe in God. My point is that it's equally irrational not to believe my made up story. You can't produce a shred of physical evidence to dispute it. You have to admit it's a possibility. And that's as much of your story as I'll admit. There could be a God that is unknowable, has not influence on human affairs, can't be proved right or wrong. And also aliens could have abducted you, altered your brain, and used you for a silly joke. They're both either rational to believe on grounds of impossibility of knowing for absolutely certain that they're false, or they're both rational to disbelieve on the grounds of there being no evidence at all for them.
So which will you choose? Occam's razor, or unlimited silliness? Both are viable belief systems.
the NZ parliament is not sovereign.
No, really, it is.
Money quote:
In passing the Constitution Act 1986 (effective 1 January 1987), New Zealand “unilaterally revoked all residual United Kingdom legislative power.” New Zealand, as of 1987, is a free-standing constitutional monarchy whose parliament has unlimited sovereign power.
Parliament here could pass a law requiring you to swear on the Koran, or that you should perform sacred rites with virgins and chickens, if they could get it through the votes. They won't, of course.
-
Yup, it's my story. I get to define these aliens how I like.
So, you don't really mean aliens, you mean human-like beings that you can't show any evidence for, right?
Again, Occam's Razor says that my explanation is more probable because it makes fewer assumptions than yours does.You've now backtracked from "aliens that have taken over my brain" to "aliens that exist".
Your "money quote" is circular reasoning: you are assuming that the Constitution Act was effective in order to argue that NZ legislation is effective.
The legislation is not effective because there is more to sovereignty than political supremacy, and the NZ parliament doesn't meet the criteria.
This point is illustrated by them using a blatantly false definition of sovereignty to give the impression that they are actually sovereign. -
BenWilson, in reply to
So, you don’t really mean aliens, you mean human-like beings that you can’t show any evidence for, right?
No, I mean aliens. If you want more detail, fine. Thousands of them can fit on the head of a pin. They are immortal and come from a galaxy far, far away. They are fond of the color green. Country and western music seems to relax them.
You’ve now backtracked from “aliens that have taken over my brain” to “aliens that exist”.
No. I'm still on the aliens that have taken over your brain. They could exist. Admit it.
you are assuming that the Constitution Act was effective in order to argue that NZ legislation is effective.
Yes, I believe that the laws passed by the NZ parliament are the laws of the land, and every court, judge, lawyer, and police officer in the land will back me up on that one. That's about as effective as it gets.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
all Thetans are liars...
No. I’m still on the aliens that have taken over your brain.
They could exist. Admit it.Scientology is 'clear' on this...
According to Scientology doctrine, a thetan exists whether operating a human body or not. Scientology advertises itself as being able to "rehabilitate" the thetan of a practitioner to a state where the individual can operate with or without a "flesh body". The term "operating thetan" would then apply as it does when an individual is operating a body. The Operating Thetan (OT) levels are the upper level courses in Scientology.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.