Dawkins can defend himself better than I can, but he asks us to at least question why we can't dismantle it too--and the best voices do this without becoming too Chaucer-like.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Printable View
Dawkins can defend himself better than I can, but he asks us to at least question why we can't dismantle it too--and the best voices do this without becoming too Chaucer-like.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
While society is assumed to have the right to regulate outward conduct for the preservation of order and the encouragement of the peaceful arts, this does not mean that it has a right to regulate matters of conscience or thinking--- those areas which we call "personal," and which are in a sense, inward conduct. Thus society (if not indeed climate) may demand that one goes about in public more or less clothed (and what about "nude beaches"?), but cannot tell us that we should consider nudity as "morally wrong."
The objection that "a maneater lion then should not be objected for this acts if his actions as such may be termed as ''personal'" ignores that what is different about a maneater's act is not that it is in any way considered to be "personal" but that it is not done from choice, understanding, or will. A dog urinating in public is not reflecting anything personal, but follows instinct and nature; it is for that reason that we attach no censure or blame for it.
*****
In the world of ideas, I see no reason for anyone to avoid the contests of differing perspectives, still less to look askance at atheists (or any other "group" for that matter) presenting their viewpoint and providing arguments in support of it.
One may say that it is their right, or one may argue that an individual who must perforce make choices, should do so based on as much information as possible and not solely under the tutelage of situation, received opinion, or accident of birth. In this sense (now that I have read posts during composition) all ideas, or at least their expression, require "protection."
Nudity is not 'immoral' in the literal sense but it is ofcourse 'conditional'.
One cannot move around 'nude' anywhere anytime he liked uncensored (like the dog peeing without his ''will' or instinct as it's called).
Don't you think humans too have instincts?? wholesale Nudity is not 'instinct' against hiccups or sneezing which are involuntary or instinctive
acts. All other acts, tangible or intangible , are governed by principles so are most involuntary acts are governed by some cultural rules of conduct.
Nudity on beaches may not be objectionable being a specified spot for bathing or a part of culture of a certain place. While at other places you cant even dream of bathing in the nude on the beaches!! Just have a look around the world,,,,it's bigger than anyone's home!
Searching God is like searching the sun by a lamp !
Thoughts cannot be stolen but they could be traded, given up, distorted, right or wrong. Who knows??
It appears to me that there are three overall points that many (if not most) of the posts touch upon.
1) The issue of a right to a personal belief of one's own choice. Unless I missed something, nobody questions that people have an unalienable (or 'inalienable,' if you prefer) right of free conscience.
2) The right to freely express one's opinion. I can't imagine anyone belonging to a bulletin board like Literature Network who would seriously argue against this right.
3) The right to proselytize one's point of view. This is where things seem to get dicey. There are several issues packed in here. Not the least of which is the role of money in the media. Leaving that particular issue on the side (since it gets into the realm of politics), there is a question of when a person has the right to proselytize.
Clearly in the case of private organizations (such as this one) there is a right by those who have set up the organization to restrict such activity. Street corners are another matter, since in a free society we recognize the right to proselytize (within certain limits -- consider Sedition Acts during times of war).
If there is a conflict between society rules and one's private beliefs one has to make a choice. And morally I think it is reasonable to choose civil disobedience if one holds that one's beliefs are a greater good. That being said, one must also recognize, as Thoreau, Gandhi, and King did, that morally one is required to accept the penalty for civil disobedience as well.
I am also thinking of trying to find my own slant on a piece about online communities and where the line is. I am afraid some might think badly of me if I admit that I've been in lots of chats (IRCs) and communities in 11 years, grown old with this technology and have done some things I am ashamed of,Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
but, I am always conscious of the fact that I am a minority.
I know no one can see that I am a minority, and that for all others know, I am a liar, or Ted Bundy in disguise--I'm not--but what I mean is my minority self-identification follows me, and I am always braced, fairly or not, for the tyranny of the majority to *muzzle* me.
This has nothing to do with atheism or religion directly--but it accounts for some things in my posture, my assumption that most of you are *normal* mothers, husbands, teens, students, and I'm not--and maybe that too is an invalid assumption on my part--but it explains part of me, and why I so highly value dissent and the right to voice it, as long as I do not violate community standards so much as to lose sight of the value of the message in the first place.
But this is why I prize Hitchens--he would never be afraid of board moderators, and no doubt would tell me "hey, Jo, if you want to write as I do then roll your dice, you know?" He conquered the fear of not being himself, and as such, carved out a platform.
I take vacations from what it takes to achieve that, and both want *normal* people to accept me as part of something, which LN represents, but want to push back against some of its conventions at the same time, want to be recognized as a minority with my difference by the suburban crowd.
What a mouthful:D:D.
I can tell you I for one will never try to interfere with your right to speak your opinions. I've never really had any problems with the moderators here--as far as online communities go, most are retarded; this is a good one. I've faced criticism I felt was negative and personal/insulting on here, but that might be anywhere you go. I don't see much of it, but the concept itself is so strange, being negative or insulting... on the internet or in person-- internet is different because for one these things are written, and also it is anonymous; it makes for an interesting mix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
I notice that you mention not forgetting the meaning of your message, and that's something I think about. If our message is peace, then we can't fight war to that end, can we? If people "mean well," they should be careful to check their words and intentions towards others.
Wow, I spend two days at work away from this thread, and I come back to find four new pages of discussion. You guys all need busier jobs. ;)
This is certainly true, and perhaps a trap into which I sometimes fall. However, I have never said to a theist that he or she was wrong, or that there is absolutely no god, and that is what bothers me about believers (not all but in general) since most theistic arguments do seem to be built on absolute knowledge: the universe had to start this way, everything is so complex that it had to be designed, and so on and so forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
I would agree with that. It is probably a futile endeavor to try to convince somebody that their deepest beliefs are incorrect, and it is also surely an unnecessary one (because, really, why should I honestly care?), but when I see an argument I perceived to be flawed, I just can't help but chime in.Quote:
The Theist's argument generally fails when they try to find something that definitively proves G-d's existence (you can't), and the atheist cannot disprove G-d either, so they're left with attacking the theist's weak attempt to PROVE G-d's existence. I think that captures most of what has REALLY been going on in this thread thus far.
I am indeed 17, and I greatly appreciate your compliments. Of course, I'm probably just copying arguments I've read elsewhere, but I appreciate it all the same.Quote:
By the way, I looked at your profile. Are you really only 17? You're impressively smart.
No, I am not. Are you asserting that there were no opponents to religion and theism and the arguments of Aquinas in the 12th century? I would find that hard to believe. Of course, they probably weren't able to widely circulate their criticisms, what with the church exercising an extraordinary amount of control and influence over society and executing so-called heretics and blasphemers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Of course the problem with that is that I cannot think or argue with the knowledge of future generations; I can only think and argue with the knowledge of now, so to speak, which is how everybody functions. However, here is my central argument: rather than pointing out how my thinking might possibly, theoretically be disproved by a future, more intellectually advanced society, you should use the knowledge that you currently possess and try to point out specific flaws in my arguments. If you are unable to do that, I really don't see why I should consider other possibilities that don't make sense now, just in case they'll make sense later.Quote:
Correct. And in the future they may know even more than you that may alter the rational thought process from yours.
That is fair enough; obviously I made a mistake in stating that Aquinas was not logical. That being said, I would still assert that his proofs for the existence of God are very flawed, and don't hold up to scrutiny.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
That is fair enough, and if I came on too argumentative I apologize. I don't actually have any problem with theism or theists, and as you pointed out some of the greatest thinkers and artists who ever lived had theistic philosophies. I just happen to believe that atheism is a much more logical point of view, and for me logic is the most important thing, while I have never felt any feelings which I would describe as spiritual.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Okay, now I'm caught up. Hopefully this thread won't get away from me again while I'm working the next few days.
About the negative and insulting Niko--sigh, my sister was the psych major, not me--but, I think most internet users have the best of intentions--not all, and there will be trolls anywhere, that is human nature. Sometimes it is a *fight* for the sake of a *fight*; been there, done that, and I am too old now and too ill to really roll out the dukes, and it is silly anyway, getting worked up on a board or e-list, but these things suck people in too. I am drifting, but detachment is easy in conception, harder in practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
In any case, we'll all live and learn as long as we want to. Good night.
I believe most of us discussing here would agree that we do not have problems with the belief of others, in sense of the sole fact that they hold certain points of view that we do not.
However, there is an important question related to that belief, given that our lives are necessarily influenced by certain ways of the majority of an area we live in - to which extent is tolerable that the belief of others, particularly religious majority of an area one lives in, influences or interferes with one's functioning in that area as an atheist or religious minority, in an officially secular country, on all levels, from everyday life situations of demonstrating belief in public institutions to legal issues of, for example, majority RE in school.
That is, I believe, more in touch with an original intent of the thread, and raises some potentially interesting questions. See, I may have nothing against the belief of others and their right to conduct the matters of their private life in accordance with that belief, but I do oppose:
1) The fact that certain amount of money off the taxes we all pay in many officially secular countries is given to religious institutions (which does not mean only the religion of the majority).
If secularity is supposed to function on separation of Church and State, in which State shall not go against Church in sense of prohibiting its activities, but also not favour any religious institution, in sense of aiding it (esp. financially!), is this not violating it? Should not religious institutions be financially suppported strictly by their adherents?
Share your views on how this functions in your country.
2) The fact that, financially, religious institutions are again in some officially secular countries being given priviledges regarding taxes on property and being exempted from those. Again, financial favouring of religious institutions.
3) The fact that many officially secular countries teach Religious Education in public schools, in sense that RE is not a neutral teaching of world religions, but teaching the religion of the majority (or minority, if they organise it for themselves) for the religious majority, from the religious perspective, involving religious practice in those classes (prayers, for example), and religious symbols displayed in those classrooms (cross on the wall, for example).
Should not that kind of RE, even if it is often technically elective, be removed from public schools?
4) The fact that in some officially secular countries which teach RE as described in the point above the presence in those classes is nearly mandatory, or that those classes are intentionally put in the midst of the school day, which creates problem for young children who in some cases do not have guidance, supervision and organised activity instead of RE during that time? Speaking from my own personal example, whilst living in Croatia. The situation there is still the same. Which means that many parents who otherwise would not want their children to attend RE, still send their kids to RE because they fear that their children will be discriminated against by their colleagues on the grounds of religion (and/or nation, remember that I am speaking for Croatia, the territory of ex-Yu), because they worry something will happen to them (in case of young children) since they are not supervised during that time and may as well leave school, etc.
So yeah, officially, RE is not mandatory; but people are well 'blackmailed' to send their children to attend it (so you have 99% of kids who attend it, only half of whom are from religious families; in my class I was the only one who did not attend it). And I am pretty sure this happens in other countries as well, here in Italy it is not drastically different either.
5) The fact that teachers of that kind of RE in some secular countries are paid not by their religious institution, but by Ministry of Education, which is again financed by money from mine and everyone else's taxes.
Sorry, it is not alright that I finance them with my money.
6) The fact that religious symbols are still widely presented in some public schools in officially secular countries. You know, the picture of Pope, crucefices, that kind of things. (And it is not the case in which religious symbol is artistic heritage or part of the architecture of the building.) Seen with my own eyes, in three countries. Public schools, I repeat. Secular countries, I repeat. Cannot emphasise that enough.
7) The fact that in many secular countries there is open identification of nationality and religion (e.g. Italian=Catholic, in Croatia that is even worse, just two examples), in public speeches people make (I personally heard a speech as a child on some non-religious occassion, it went like this: "So I welcome you, as Italian and as Catholic..." :rolleyes:), public associations (press, etc), and so on.
8) The fact that many secular countries' laws are under the influence of religious viewpoint of a majority on certain issues (e.g. abortion, assisted suicide, you know, the usual set of controverse ethical dilemmas).
Take a look at this way. If somebody is religious and her religion forbids her to abort, fine, but why should her religion forbid me to abort, based on their teachings I do not even believe in? Just an example - I certainly do not want this to turn into thread on any of the ethical issues in specific. But that is the logic behind - the logic is "G-d is against that", ergo it must be forbidden by the law. If the logic were "It is a medical consensus that aborting at any point is a murder of a person", I would not have nearly as much problem about it as I would have if the logic were of religious nature. And many ethical dilemmas in our society, especially regarding bioethics, are exactly of religious nature, where religion has more to say than professionals in the field.
What do you think about it? What is the extent to which religious majority has the right to influence everyday life of religious minorities or atheists in officially secular countries?
(Jozanny, I hope this is more to a point, feel free to move it into different directions if you had principally something else in mind. ;))
"What is the extent to which religious majority has the right to influence everyday life of religious minorities or atheists in officially secular countries?
This question was answered by John Stuart Mill in his famous essay "On Liberty." Although written in 1869, it seems even more important in today's world in which the "tyranny of the majority" is exercised in so manifold and in so subterranean ways. While the essay itself addresses the problem of "the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual," The fourth chapter discusses the issue of religious tolerance:
http://www.bartleby.com/130/4.html
I suggest any discussion should consider carefully Mill's arguments, which seem to me to be definitive.
Regards,
John
No no, you didn't seem too argumentative at all. If I seem wary... well, anyway if one is too argumentative then they will not see anything beyond their own ideas, and to engage someone like this, they have to be willing to take down the argumentativeness a notch. Argumentation like this is like elitism. And-- one is argumentative because they have an idea, the only thing is the idea should speak for itself. Ideas are free for everyone, and true ideas are free to everyone, you can't deny people their ideas... erm...I guess to sum up is just over argumentation deadens any kind of discussion, and it cannot serve any purpose because it defeats itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Al
I'm not interested in fighting for the sake of a fight; it's not very much fun for me. I just wanted to give support for free exchange of ideas! If people get personal on here, it has a negative impact. I just want people to be able to discuss comfortably, their ideas, what they think is true; regardless of anything else, as long as they don't infringe upon others' rights to be heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
And respect is necessary; to show respect even if one doesn't feel it... this is a very basic idea-- everyone desires respect, and so we should show others respect, even if only for ourselves. People who are disrespectful on here and worse are only showing their own ignorance of this basic idea.
I am assuming that you are referring to the quinque viae as found in the summa theologiae, though there is another version in the summa contra gentiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Al
You are welcome to assert that the proofs are flawed, but you haven't pointed out any flaws. The problems with the Five Ways generally come from a rejection of the Aristotelian metaphysical underpinnings and not with the arguments themselves.
So while I agree with you that the Five Ways do not succeed in proving God's existence I disagree strongly with your assertion about the internal structure of those arguments.
My difficulty with Hitchens is not with his positions, which I find interesting, but that his assertiveness pushes into the realm of aggression. While one may argue that his opponents are aggressive as well, I don't see that as being relevant. The optimal solution to the dilemma of being faced with a rabid dog is certainly not to bite him. A fruitful discussion requires respect from both parties, and if one feels one is not getting respect one should have the sense to end the discussion. My mother would no doubt have reminded Hitchens, "When you argue with a fool nobody will be able to tell the difference between you two."Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny
I am not sure that wanting to push back against some of the conventions is desirable not because conventions need to be respected (many do not) but rather simply because it has a tendency to cause one to define oneself not on one's own terms but in an external way, by how others are.
Okay, I was simply trying to provide a nuanced view. Not all of us are grandmothers who enjoy church socials--and while trolling in and of itself is disruptive and none of us like it--the trolls themselves are also stigmatized by the label. Some people are angry and in pain and not as well educated as others, which is why I also think it leads to an over-reaction by the more well adjusted, and it certainly isn't unique to LitNet. I take the occasional cuss and vinegar in stride, and me isn't perfect either:), as we can all tell by my love of digression.Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
Back on point, or a few of them, even though I am not in best form right now:
1.Whether or not Aquinas' logical arguments remain sound to the present day, as Al and Richard debated, I am not grounded enough in Aristotlean logic to say, but the Vatican certainly continues to use classical Aristotlean argument to push back against liberalism, materialism, and state authority. Both my philosophy professor and Richard question whether this is a successful way to argue doctrine, let alone a god proof, but the Popes certainly seem beholden to a decent syllogism, and I'm interested in exploring this further.
2. Anastasija, excellent post on the continuing dialectic between church and state; I will come back to it, except to add it exists in the east as well, and not so harmoniously.
3. I went surfing and found some interesting articles by Austin Cline; some of what he says about belief and choice is interesting:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismm...istsChoose.htmQuote:
When an evangelist tells us that we have chosen to be atheists and that we are deliberately avoiding belief in a god, they are not entirely correct. It isn't true that one chooses to be an atheist. Atheism — especially if it is at all rational — is simply the inevitable conclusion from available information. I no more "choose" to disbelieve in gods than I "choose" to disbelieve in elves or than I "choose" to believe that there is a chair in my room. These beliefs and the absence thereof are not acts of will which I had to consciously take — they are, rather, conclusions which were necessary based upon the evidence at hand.
*****
On the other hand, when an atheist argues that a theist believes in a god simply because they want to, that isn't entirely correct either. A theist may wish it to be true that a god exist and this could certainly have an impact on how they look at the evidence. For this reason, the common complaint that theists are engaging in "wishful thinking" in their beliefs and examination of evidence may have some validity but not in the exact way that it's usually meant.
******
Instead of focusing on the actual beliefs, which are not themselves choices, it can be more important and more productive to focus instead on how a person has arrived at their beliefs because that is the result of willful choices. As a matter of fact, it is my experience that it is the method of belief formation which ultimately separates theist and atheists more then the details of a person's theism.
See this is my problem with Dawkins & his ilk. WHy do we want to dismantle it? what business is it of ours? I am very much of the live & let live opinion....Quote:
Originally Posted by Jozanny