| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/27/2009 10:40:51 PM · #3401 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by yanko:
Jason, why is it so hard for you to accept that the atheist doesn't believe in some mythical absolute truth like the theist? |
Well, frankly Richard, they sure as hell argue like there is an absolute truth on threads like this. If all we have to determine right and wrong are our personal experiences and (maybe) society. What does a thread like this hope to accomplish? I bring my personal experience to the table and decide gay marriage should not be allowed (and my personal experience says that should go for everybody). You bring yours to the table that says gay marriage is fine. What then? Nobody here is arguing like they have nothing but their personal experience backing them up. They argue as if they are right. That's why it's hard for me to accept. When the rubber meets the road, nobody else seems to hold your statement above to be true either, especially the atheists. |
Personal experiences shouldn't be the basis for anything beyond the personal. This is why we have laws base on the constitution and not personal beliefs. That's my view and so far I've yet to see you counter it.
|
|
|
|
12/27/2009 10:48:51 PM · #3402 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
My views are my own and may not match the public majority, however they are still the product of my experiences and upbringing in this particular time and place. The same holds true for you and everybody else, whether they care to admit it or not. Had you been born in Iran or Northern India, you almost certainly wouldn't be Christian, and had you lived in 16th century South Carolina, you'd probably think women weren't capable of leadership positions and owning slaves was your God-given right. Believing otherwise is denial. |
Blah blah blah. So what I hear you saying (other than redirection) is you have nothing but personal experience to answer questions like the one about basic human rights. Is that the case? |
You can't hear anything in this forum. You have to read it. Try that. You're still trying to hammer the square peg of a single source of morality into the round hole of the real world, and it doesn't fit. Peoples' ideas of right and wrong are based upon their experiences, the influence of their parents, peers, siblings, teachers and other role models, the accepted norms of their society, and their own personal mental evaluations. Religious beliefs (if any) are a result— NOT the source— of those same factors. Repeating the above: my view on basic human rights would be very different if I grew up in a different place and time, and so would yours. Do you honestly believe that people of different race, sex and nationality would have the same opinion of basic human rights if they were all raised at the same time on the same version of the bible?
And I agree with Yanko: your personal beliefs shouldn't be the basis for anything beyond the personal, and that's the point of this thread. If you don't think men should marry other men, then don't marry a guy. If you don't think people should eat pork or shellfish, then don't eat them. What others choose to believe is their business, not yours. Exceptions are made to protect innocent victims, and that doesn't apply at all to gay marriage.
Message edited by author 2009-12-27 22:56:46. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 10:51:32 PM · #3403 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, we're talking about the determinism that goes with materialism. (isn't that obvious when I originally quoted "although this goes against the fatalism inherent in materialism.") Just substitute the word determinism for fatalism, I guess. |
OK, what determinism goes with materialism? For me to respond, I have to understand what you are saying. I'm thinking that you are working along the lines of causal determinism, but I don't want to guess and give you the wrong answer. Please, just elucidate. You and I think differently; you see it as a matter of course, and I'm not quite there yet. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 10:59:29 PM · #3404 |
OK, I got bigger fish to fry. The garbage disposal is being help up under the sink at the moment with my car jack. I'll just repost to allow Louis to reply (my whole purpose). I didn't have the energy to have five conversations at once, and yet I find myself doing just that.
I'll leave dahkota with a tidbit because she asked nicely. Yes, causal determinism, although we are discussing it in regards to Free Will so invoking quantum mechanics or the uncertainty principle does not help us. Free Will is not capable under either scenario. The rigid, unchangable procession of causal determinism would only be replaced by the random chaos of quantum mechanics which certainly doesn't speak to us controlling our actions.
For Louis:
Originally posted by Louis:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I know it feels better to you to stick with "natural" processes, but there is no a priori reason to assume this to be the case.
Yes there is. Because natural processes described by scientific theorizing are preferable to processes described by bronze-age mythologists who knew nothing about the natural world around them unless it was tangible and immediate. (My contention is that you get your religion from these texts, and so they are as accountable for your world view as anything else, and thus, fair game.)
So here's your big moment to give me the essay we've been talking about. Using your scientific theories, answer the following questions:
What are basic human rights?
When should these rights be granted to a human?
Are there ever times these rights should be removed?
Up until now I've been content to point out things you do not know within the scientific world (I'm playing on your turf, as it were). Now we can move to another realm and see how you do.
I hope everybody else doesn't think I'm ignoring them...except I am. :) I'm talking to Louis at the moment. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 11:01:32 PM · #3405 |
Geez, I just can't resist.
Ricahrd, isn't the statement "your personal beliefs shouldn't be the basis for anything beyond the personal" a personal belief in itself? How do you then apply it to me? I'm not you.
Message edited by author 2009-12-27 23:02:33. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 11:32:32 PM · #3406 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...Louis was the one who said all questions worth asking could be answered through the Scientific Method. |
I never said that. We were specifically talking about quantifiable scientific problems, like the origin of life, or the origin of the universe. Those questions will ultimately be answered by science, not bibles. In the meantime, I will rely on the current peer-reviewed falsifiable testable theory concerning these subjects, and will not rely whatsoever on religion to address them.
For some time you've been asking me to answer these questions concerning issues of morality or social equality. I sense you feel I've been stumped. I haven't been stumped. But I like the question. I think it's worth answering. I've taken my time, because I'd really like to think about my answer. (I've answered it quickly many times before in the "other" thread, you can check there -- or maybe it's the "other" website.) Certainly I don't think one can theorize around these questions, and I never suggested that. |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 11:47:16 PM · #3407 |
| I'll have to check the history of our conversation to verify that. ;) |
|
|
|
12/27/2009 11:51:21 PM · #3408 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What are basic human rights? |
I don't know. There are no universal human rights as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When should these rights be granted to a human?
Are there ever times these rights should be removed? |
See above.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2009 12:39:02 AM · #3409 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, causal determinism, although we are discussing it in regards to Free Will so invoking quantum mechanics or the uncertainty principle does not help us. Free Will is not capable under either scenario. |
Why did the chicken cross the road? Seriously. You seem to think that only humans are capable of making independent decisions, so perhaps you can explain what makes "free will" different from a monkey deciding to refuse rewards if it perceives unfairness or a wounded mother orangutan choosing to bring her baby to the gunman before dying...? I won't hold my breath since you haven't answered a single question I've posed to you in over a week.
Message edited by author 2009-12-28 00:39:43. |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 01:19:54 AM · #3410 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, causal determinism, although we are discussing it in regards to Free Will so invoking quantum mechanics or the uncertainty principle does not help us. Free Will is not capable under either scenario. |
Why did the chicken cross the road? Seriously. You seem to think that only humans are capable of making independent decisions, so perhaps you can explain what makes "free will" different from a monkey deciding to refuse rewards if it perceives unfairness or a wounded mother orangutan choosing to bring her baby to the gunman before dying...? I won't hold my breath since you haven't answered a single question I've posed to you in over a week. |
I honestly think our differences hinge on what you consider "free will". If you take it to mean the same thing I do, you would realize that a monkey and a human are no different under causal determinism. One is just a more complicated version of the other (I won't tell you which is which. ;)) Unless you are redirecting, monkeys and humans are the same under materialism/atheism. Neither is a free agent that is able to break the chain of causal determinism. |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 01:21:17 AM · #3411 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What are basic human rights? |
I don't know. There are no universal human rights as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When should these rights be granted to a human?
Are there ever times these rights should be removed? |
See above. |
I'm hoping there is more than this. I'll let the peanut gallery answer, but do you think it would be a decent world if we ALL held this position? |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 04:22:36 AM · #3412 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What are basic human rights? |
I don't know. There are no universal human rights as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When should these rights be granted to a human?
Are there ever times these rights should be removed? |
See above. |
I'm hoping there is more than this. I'll let the peanut gallery answer, but do you think it would be a decent world if we ALL held this position? |
If you're looking for an answer to a question of morality from a system that is, at it's heart, amoral, you're not going to be successful. Science simply is. Moral determinations can be made in light of what science says, but science itself has nothing to say if you ask it "should john doe have died," but it can say how and why and when.
The place of science has never been guidance, merely reporting. Science was used to determine innumerable things that are deadly to humans. However, it didn't say "use this to kill other humans" or "it is in the greater good to avoid this" or anything of the sort. It just says X kills X.
My take on human rights?
I agree with  Louis; there are no universal rights. I hold that the code of morals we hold is a reflection of the tendencies of humans and the circumstances they are placed in. Decisions of moral nature are determinations used to select the best option for the survival of the population. In this light, not only are the generous actions of individuals explained, but so too are the atrocities. Slavery and the complete subjugation of any minority is achieved because the ruling class determines it would like to live at a higher standard and has a means to keep things as they are (maintain class structure). It is in THEIR best interest to do so.
Why do people do good things? They hold that a generous and caring environment is more advantageous for themselves and society.
Humans are a social species, and cooperation is necessary- it's hardly surprising that it is beneficial for the population as a whole to prevent death and suffering.
Morals are only universal to the extent that their formation is out of the same crucible (the perceived interest of the actors). What comes out... could be a knife or a stethoscope, it just depends what side of things you're on. How else could the same culture that embraced slavery suddenly decide to turn full circle on the issue, only to make an attempt to legitimize torture in times of war (another item it supposedly abhors).
As far as the whole "decent world" thing... slavery and a brutish society based upon force is not in the best interest of every member when considered rationally. However, if one feels that the physical world is insignificant to what they will encounter later in the afterlife and feel that they have divine permission... |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 04:41:23 AM · #3413 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Geez, I just can't resist.
Ricahrd, isn't the statement "your personal beliefs shouldn't be the basis for anything beyond the personal" a personal belief in itself? How do you then apply it to me? I'm not you. |
Uh no. It's merely stating the obvious. What part of personal do you not understand? It implies the singular does it not?
|
|
|
|
12/28/2009 05:23:41 AM · #3414 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The garbage disposal is being help up under the sink at the moment with my car jack. |
You're a comedian's dream.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2009 06:58:30 AM · #3415 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I bring my personal experience to the table and decide gay marriage should not be allowed. |
I know you probably don't care, but this statement completely changes how and what I think of you.
How you can use your fears and beliefs to make such an absurd statement is completely beyond my comprehension.
You actually had an iota of credibility for a while, but this time you really stepped in it.
Being gay is not a disease, it doesn't rub off, in no way does it affect your life by allowing gays to marry outside of your religious beliefs, and it's not going to influence your children, except possibly for them to see that a gay couple is just like a hetero couple when it comes to living life.....
So PLEASE explain this.....
What personal experience of yours is it that makes you decide that gay marriage should not be allowed????
Message edited by author 2009-12-28 07:08:28.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2009 10:48:57 AM · #3416 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
you would realize that a monkey and a human are no different under causal determinism... Neither is a free agent that is able to break the chain of causal determinism. |
I agree that they're no different (in stark contrast to the commonly-held religious view that animals are automatons unable to make a choice). However, deciding to give up a reward or surrendering your baby to the person who shot you should be the opposite of expected behavior unless these animals ARE free agents able to make their own independent decisions. You tried to dodge the question: what makes you think humans are unique in the free will department in YOUR view... what distinguishes humans from the above behavior?
Message edited by author 2009-12-28 10:49:15. |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 12:04:53 PM · #3417 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
What are basic human rights? |
I don't know. There are no universal human rights as far as I'm concerned.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When should these rights be granted to a human?
Are there ever times these rights should be removed? |
See above. |
I'm hoping there is more than this. I'll let the peanut gallery answer, but do you think it would be a decent world if we ALL held this position? |
Is there a single right that has been recognised as being self evident by all people at all times in history? I think that the answer is "no", and that is the evidence that supports Louis' opinion - there is no fundamental or basic human right.
However some societies in history have found it beneficial to apply the concept. Modern western society takes a somewhat utilitarian approach that rests upon concepts of biological equality. In modern western society the grant and removal of rights is usually framed in the context of a social contract - the terms of which vary slightly depending on the history of the nation in question.
|
|
|
|
12/28/2009 12:11:26 PM · #3418 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
you would realize that a monkey and a human are no different under causal determinism... Neither is a free agent that is able to break the chain of causal determinism. |
I agree that they're no different (in stark contrast to the commonly-held religious view that animals are automatons unable to make a choice). However, deciding to give up a reward or surrendering your baby to the person who shot you should be the opposite of expected behavior unless these animals ARE free agents able to make their own independent decisions. You tried to dodge the question: what makes you think humans are unique in the free will department in YOUR view... what distinguishes humans from the above behavior? |
I don't know that a monkey doesn't have free will.
Message edited by author 2009-12-28 12:15:07. |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 12:14:41 PM · #3419 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Geez, I just can't resist.
Ricahrd, isn't the statement "your personal beliefs shouldn't be the basis for anything beyond the personal" a personal belief in itself? How do you then apply it to me? I'm not you. |
Uh no. It's merely stating the obvious. What part of personal do you not understand? It implies the singular does it not? |
Uh yeah. The word "should" gives it away as a value judgement. You can't just claim that this statement is not a "personal belief". My rebuttal is logically consistent and you can't just ignore that. Clearly a majority of our society do not agree with your statement. They feel that personal beliefs about morality should extend to the entire society. If that doesn't expose your statement as "personal belief" then I'm not sure what to tell you... |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 12:17:42 PM · #3420 |
I just find it pretty amusing that we have three or maybe four people claiming there is no such thing as basic human rights and yet we are 3500 posts into an argument over whether people can marry whomever they want. If there is no basic code of conduct to appeal to, then it's apparently either up to society and individuals to decide, and they currently have voted "no".
Case closed? |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 12:23:15 PM · #3421 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know that a monkey doesn't have free will. All I know is what I experience as I have "inside information" to my own thought processes. That information tells me I can choose to do what I want. Either it's real or an illusion. |
You're still dodging the question, and it's an important one. Religion holds that free will is a special trait of humans, yet all sorts of animals make decisions that are contrary to expected behavior or even self-preservation. Are they not also choosing what they want to do? If animals can also make independent decisions (and all evidence suggests that they can), then free will is not unique to humans— a major thrashing of foundational religious concepts. If they can't, then how do you explain such behavior in terms of an automatic response when individual behaviors differ? "I don't know" isn't going to suffice here since this should type of question be readily answerable from the Bible. |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 12:26:26 PM · #3422 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I don't know that a monkey doesn't have free will. All I know is what I experience as I have "inside information" to my own thought processes. That information tells me I can choose to do what I want. Either it's real or an illusion. |
You're still dodging the question, and it's an important one. Religion holds that free will is a special trait of humans, yet all sorts of animals make decisions that are contrary to expected behavior or even self-preservation. Are they not also choosing what they want to do? If animals can also make independent decisions (and all evidence suggests that they can), then free will is not unique to humans— a major thrashing of foundational religious concepts. If they can't, then how do you explain such behavior in terms of an automatic response when individual behaviors differ? "I don't know" isn't going to suffice here since this should type of question be readily answerable from the Bible. |
Like dahkota asked, I'm going to have to ask you to clarify what kind of free will you are talking about. Moral free will? causal free will? Do you mean a monkey is held responsible for his actions as a moral agent? or do you mean a monkey can break the causal chain of molecular processes to effect his choice in the physical world? If it's the first, I'd say it's because man is endowed with a soul, something indestructable. If it's the second, well, that's what I don't know. I doubt the Bible speaks to that.
You never told me what your own definition of free will is. A little redirection? You complain that I haven't answered your questions all week, you've never answered mine... :P
I'm off to go sledding.
Message edited by author 2009-12-28 12:28:52. |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 12:36:15 PM · #3423 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If there is no basic code of conduct to appeal to, then it's apparently either up to society and individuals to decide, and they currently have voted "no." Case closed? |
Case closed in closed societies like North Korea or Iran. Here in the United States, we value personal freedom, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights sets the framework for what is allowed and what can be restricted. Absent any compelling reason to prohibit gay marriage (and there isn't one), imposing such laws becomes a violation of personal freedom— one group forcing its will upon another that doesn't affect them or public safety. Courts have repeatedly struck these laws of hatred down as unconstitutional. Churches managed to organize enough people in California to amend that state's constitution, but it won't last. |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 12:42:00 PM · #3424 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If there is no basic code of conduct to appeal to, then it's apparently either up to society and individuals to decide, and they currently have voted "no." Case closed? |
Case closed in closed societies like North Korea or Iran. Here in the United States, we value personal freedom, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights sets the framework for what is allowed and what can be restricted. Absent any compelling reason to prohibit gay marriage (and there isn't one), imposing such laws becomes a violation of personal freedom— one group forcing its will upon another that doesn't affect them or public safety. Courts have repeatedly struck these laws of hatred down as unconstitutional. Churches managed to organize enough people in California to amend that state's constitution, but it won't last. |
Well, shouldn't we just all shut up then and let the courts decide? |
|
|
|
12/28/2009 12:43:39 PM · #3425 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Like dahkota asked, I'm going to have to ask you to clarify what kind of free will you are talking about. Moral free will? causal free will? Do you mean a monkey is held responsible for his actions as a moral agent? or do you mean a monkey can break the causal chain of molecular processes to effect his choice in the physical world? If it's the first, I'd say it's because man is endowed with a soul, something indestructable. If it's the second, well, that's what I don't know. I doubt the Bible speaks to that. |
The Bible doesn't speak to this because it assumes animals are automatons. I'm fine with using YOUR definition: "All I know is what I experience as I have "inside information" to my own thought processes. That information tells me I can choose to do what I want." Do you think animals lack this same ability?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You complain that I haven't answered your questions all week, you've never answered mine... :P |
Scroll back, ya loon. As far as I can see, I've answered every direct question with a direct response. |
|
