Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is now the SECOND time someone assumed the role of hero and imagined themselves as "defending" another person (or objected to what I said to THEM). I am debating THEM when I put their name at the top of the post.
They didn't even request your "help" (not that they should invite you into our personal communication/debate at all). I don't believe that Sanspeur, Troop, or anyone here is NEEDY of assistance or a rescue. I respect everyone here as being perfectly capable of expressing THEIR OWN objections to what I say when I address them.
Maybe the reason they failed to react to what I said the way you wanted them to is because they actually APPRECIATED me being forthright with them or found some relevance and value in what I said.
Even if you believe that I have been sinister and caused a reason that someone needs actual "DEFENSE" from a nasty mean ogre like me (if my writing is received as nasty, it is being misunderstood), our communication with each other is still to be considered proper and effective communication, productive, meaningful, and harmless. Anyway, maybe I missed something in the rules about group reaction to personal replies, etc.
You misunderstand why I feel that aetheists are spiritually superior to agnostics. In those dictionary definitions/links you posted, I noticed that the agnostics base their disbelief on EMPIRICISM (empirical knowledge) and their need for "PROOF" (completely ignoring all EVIDENCE of intelligent design).
The aetheists link makes no mention of empirical knowledge, epistomolgy, or a reliance on academia/intellectualism, or types of logics (mathematical logic, the logic of psychology, etc.) to back them up or justify their disbelief. They not only have "strength of conviction" (a human being's true "spirit"), but they also have the wisdom to understand that empirical knowledge is completely irrelevant to anything "spiritual".
Let me try to make this point. Sanspeur posted ONE line, I repeat "ONE line" (at best, it was only 95% devoid of any useful information). I could have either...
1) completely ignored him (I'm not in the habit of ignoring my fellow human being).
2) nastily "retaliated" with a 1 paragraph post.
3) replied forthrightly and truthful without patronizingly speaking as though he's "fragile".
...so I replied forthrightly, AND also included discussion of elements of the topic being discussed (effectively inviting him to participate). Notice his next reply to me, it was CIVIL to say the very least. Either which way, you don't have the right to subject our dealings with each other to your approval or disapproval.
Neither do you have the right to analyze ANYONE'S "thought process". If you are in the habit of psychoanalyzing/evaluating/deciding/JUDGING people, consider spirituality and spiritual thought a lost cause for yourself,...because respecting a person's humanity is the requirement for anything "spiritual".
I noticed that the agnostics base their disbelief on EMPIRICISM (empirical knowledge) and their need for "PROOF" (completely ignoring all EVIDENCE of intelligent design).
Part of my morals (as an agnostic rather than atheist) have to do with not lying to oneself (e.g. skewing facts to fit into what one wants to believe). So please fill me in on what I have failed to find so I can be true to myself. Please tell me what "evidence for intelligent design" am I "ignoring"?
(the ever too popular argument from incredulity doesn't count, as it is a logical fallacy and a conclusion based on an untested hypothesis)
More excellent way said ...."Let me try to make this point. Sanspeur posted ONE line, I repeat "ONE line" (at best, it was only 95% devoid of any useful information). I could have either..."
How about pointing this one line post that was devoid of information out to me.
Was it this one that I made in response to your remarks to jackyfrost?
"His one line post is clear, and I concur with it and certainly do not see it as mocking anybody or inflammatory in any way, although I'm not quite sure about your post."
In any case I find the best words a moral person can adhere besides the golden rule are these. "practice what you preach"
You called "My OWN RULE" a "rule" (singular), not a "MORAL"? Yet, in your other post, you said PART of MY "morals" (plural).
When you say "MY OWN RULE", that refers to a PERSONAL "ethic", but when you say "part of my morals", that refers to a list of rules/laws from a "morality code".
Maybe the absence of this distinction is the whole reason for so many misunderstandings about "morals" and what governs/determines each person's behavior (and the merit of each person's decisions, deeds, and attitudes).
If a person chooses that their behavior and decisions/attitudes be determined/governed by a CONSCIENCE (spiritUAL, no empirical knowledge can express "conscience"), they will not be conforming to a list of rules (morals). I would even be hard pressed to define one "rule" that governs my behavior, decisions, and attitudes except to simply say that I am peaceful, just, and conscientious (when I use the word "just", I'm not referring to "punishment justice", I'm referring to FAIR/just).
Empirical thought/knowledge can only express and address whatever can be put on paper (mathematical, chemical formulas, etc.,...adequate for OBJECTS that simply EXIST).
Human beings don't "EXIST", we "LIVE" (grow, eat, learn, etc.). Empirical knowledge cannot express or address the human life experience or our thoughts/conscience (human spirit). Ultimately, agnosticism is unintentionally dehumanizing because it simply cannot adequately address the human condition, philosophical, or spiritual thought, the "life"/living experience, or anything experiential. Empirical information can only address what is "static" (existence), not dynamic (life).
Just to explain how serious dehumanization is, I'll explain what I call "the identity crisis of Christianity".
Originally, Jesus devotion was called "The Way". Devotees/followers of Jesus were "members" of The Way. They were human beings FIRST and THEN "members" of "The WAY" (no reason is given for the name change, it was probably just Roman slang), but the devotees remained human beings FIRST ("...the first time called Christians.", Acts 11:26).
When the devotees became known as "Christians", they became "A Christian" first and THEN were a "HUMAN BEING".
This is why, to be realistic, "Christianity" cannot THINK properly as a FULL human being,...the result is an "identity crisis" because of dehumanization.
This is why the dehumanization of using empirical knowledge to govern/define human behavior/thought (morality, rules) is so serious.
(Sanspeur, let's discard all of the commotion about the post that you are referring to, it has been kicked to death and is in the PAST. Let's get on with life and return to the topic of this thread).
Last edited by more excellent way; 10-30-2008 at 03:58 AM..
Reason: words
You called "My OWN RULE" a "rule" (singular), not a "MORAL"? Yet, in your other post, you said PART of MY "morals" (plural).
When you say "MY OWN RULE", that refers to a PERSONAL "ethic", but when you say "part of my morals", that refers to a list of rules/laws from a "morality code".
I fail to see where you are going with this. If you want to define morals and ethics, "Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs. So while a person’s moral code is usually unchanging, the ethics he or she practices can be other-dependent."
Both statements I made can fit under the morals category. "My own rule" can be categorized under morals because it is unchanging, but it also can be considered ethics because it refers to group norms. However, I consider it to be universal (as human rights are universal), so it makes more sense to call it a moral (unchanging).
Quote:
Maybe the absence of this distinction is the whole reason for so many misunderstandings about "morals" and what governs/determines each person's behavior (and the merit of each person's decisions, deeds, and attitudes).
If a person chooses that their behavior and decisions/attitudes be determined/governed by a CONSCIENCE (spiritUAL, no empirical knowledge can express "conscience"), they will not be conforming to a list of rules (morals). I would even be hard pressed to define one "rule" that governs my behavior, decisions, and attitudes except to simply say that I am peaceful, just, and conscientious (when I use the word "just", I'm not referring to "punishment justice", I'm referring to FAIR/just).
Do you not have "rules" to govern whether or not you hurt others? I fail to see your "distinction."
Quote:
Empirical thought/knowledge can only express and address whatever can be put on paper (mathematical, chemical formulas, etc.,...adequate for OBJECTS that simply EXIST).
Human beings don't "EXIST", we "LIVE" (grow, eat, learn, etc.). Empirical knowledge cannot express or address the human life experience or our thoughts/conscience (human spirit). Ultimately, agnosticism is unintentionally dehumanizing because it simply cannot adequately address the human condition, philosophical, or spiritual thought, the "life"/living experience, or anything experiential. Empirical information can only address what is "static" (existence), not dynamic (life).
Why do you say we can't observe life? Ever heard of biology? And I can definitely observe my emotions. I can observe my own empathy. I have a strong moral sense that all humans have equal rights. One can obviously believe in human rights without believing in God.
Quote:
Just to explain how serious dehumanization is, I'll explain what I call "the identity crisis of Christianity".
Originally, Jesus devotion was called "The Way". Devotees/followers of Jesus were "members" of The Way. They were human beings FIRST and THEN "members" of "The WAY" (no reason is given for the name change, it was probably just Roman slang), but the devotees remained human beings FIRST ("...the first time called Christians.", Acts 11:26).
When the devotees became known as "Christians", they became "A Christian" first and THEN were a "HUMAN BEING".
This is why, to be realistic, "Christianity" cannot THINK properly as a FULL human being,...the result is an "identity crisis" because of dehumanization.
This is why the dehumanization of using empirical knowledge to govern/define human behavior/thought (morality, rules) is so serious.
How do you tell the difference between what comes first, the christian or the human? Just because the people at Antioch wanted to call them Christian, how does that matter? If anything, it just seems like you are saying Christianity caused dehumanization. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with empirical knowledge, so I fail to see how you drew your conclusion.
If anything, observing human rights is less dehumanizing than arbitrary "god rules", because it addresses the sovereignty of each individual human being over oneself.
I think that what dictates right and wrong is folks' brains--basically what they "feel" is right or wrong conduct, and it just stems from the way their brains work, and I think that's the case whether people are atheists or not.
More Excellent way,
I have read your interactions with some of the other members of this forum and their replies. I wanted to say a few things to you, from one christian to another. Troop had a point when he said he doesn't believe in the bible so using those verses to make a point does very little. You need to step back to some higher levels of argument. If you are going to assert that what the bible says is right, you need to first give good reason for why the bible should be heeded (historicity, veracity, etc). If you are going to say what is right and wrong, you need to first lay a foundation for why you believe an objective moral standard necessarily exists. Arguing on a prescriptive level puts one persons wit, experience and belief against anothers and it goes nowhere.
Secondly, you are spending a lot of time defending yourself. Spend more time defending the truth.
Lastly, just because you are 54 doesn' tnecessarily mean you know what you are talking about (I'm not saying you don't) and just because someone is a teenager doesn't mean they don't know what they are talking about. Age our numbers doesn't determine correctness, truth does.
respectfully,
tic
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
Abe Lincoln quote
