Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2020 10:10 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."? "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia? "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772? "God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington "In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783) "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775 Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day. Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel. Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time. I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either. I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then. Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa. OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects. But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment. So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another? We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more. Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that is pretty much the definition of atheist. As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken. And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly developed moral code than religious people. On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most "Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a wonderful moral code. On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid people with no apparent moral standards at all. Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes. So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of uselessness. If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or "believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group. Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes, which is a tough job in itself. Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count going to church as one of them. They just have to develop it from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your fellow man. I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person who literally believes in that cartoon figure. So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument. No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament down to a single phrase. Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon. Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you. It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t punish you if you don’t.”, would your moral compass point a different direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral behaviour. Sorry, your argument is far too binary. Those are not the only two choices; not even close. Yes, it’s a very binary argument, but rather than start with a 100 page treatise on the origins of religion, I chose (for the sake of brevity) to boil it down to that. My feeling is that organized religion started at the confluence of “How did we get here?” and “If I invoke some omnipresent being in the sky, maybe these yahoos might actually do what I tell them to do.” You chose to boil the argument down to a mocking cartoon - a cartoon that atheists frequently use for ridicule. Your argument lost everything in that "translation," if it actually had much substance before that. It’s not like I thought I had any chance of changing somebody’s mind (or vice versa), so perhaps I didn’t put my full effort behind it. If we can’t agree on helmet use or disk brakes, what are the odds that we can come to a universal acceptance on the existence or non-existence of God. Which reminds me, I stepped out of this thread a while ago for that very same reason with Andy, and it may be time to do so again with you. I’m sure that the religious people here have a faith strong enough to withstand whatever off the cuff arguments I throw out for atheism, and I don’t hear too many agnostics saying “Convince me one way or the other.”, so I’m not sure of the point of this discussion. Just do me a favour and consider that faith in God may not be correlated with morality or being a “good” person” |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 9:19:26 AM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 10:10 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."? "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia? "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772? "God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington "In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783) "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775 Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day. Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel. Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time. I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either. I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then. Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa. OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects. But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment. So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another? We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more. Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that is pretty much the definition of atheist. As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken. And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly developed moral code than religious people. On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most "Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a wonderful moral code. On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid people with no apparent moral standards at all. Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes. So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of uselessness. If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or "believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group. Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes, which is a tough job in itself. Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count going to church as one of them. They just have to develop it from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your fellow man. I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person who literally believes in that cartoon figure. So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument. No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament down to a single phrase. Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon. Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you. It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t punish you if you don’t.”, would your moral compass point a different direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral behaviour. Sorry, your argument is far too binary. Those are not the only two choices; not even close. Yes, it’s a very binary argument, but rather than start with a 100 page treatise on the origins of religion, I chose (for the sake of brevity) to boil it down to that. My feeling is that organized religion started at the confluence of “How did we get here?” and “If I invoke some omnipresent being in the sky, maybe these yahoos might actually do what I tell them to do.” You chose to boil the argument down to a mocking cartoon - a cartoon that atheists frequently use for ridicule. Your argument lost everything in that "translation," if it actually had much substance before that. It’s not like I thought I had any chance of changing somebody’s mind (or vice versa), so perhaps I didn’t put my full effort behind it. If we can’t agree on helmet use or disk brakes, what are the odds that we can come to a universal acceptance on the existence or non-existence of God. Which reminds me, I stepped out of this thread a while ago for that very same reason with Andy, and it may be time to do so again with you. I’m sure that the religious people here have a faith strong enough to withstand whatever off the cuff arguments I throw out for atheism, and I don’t hear too many agnostics saying “Convince me one way or the other.”, so I’m not sure of the point of this discussion. Just do me a favour and consider that faith in God may not be correlated with morality or being a “good” person” Onward non-Christian soldiers! All I have to say is that paroxysms of Christian devotion will not protect you from the novel coronavirus. https://tinyurl.com/ycd6r4hh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7-7Kpwojk Note to people from out of state -- slow down coming west from Idaho. Island City (the location of that church) is a massive speed trap. I had to pull strings with some friends in low places to get diversion for my son. It's not a gimme like in California. -- Jay Beattie. |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On 6/20/2020 12:19 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 10:10 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."? "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia? "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772? "God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington "In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783) "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775 Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day. Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel. Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time. I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either. I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then. Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa. OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects. But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment. So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another? We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more. Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that is pretty much the definition of atheist. As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken. And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly developed moral code than religious people. On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most "Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a wonderful moral code. On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid people with no apparent moral standards at all. Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes. So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of uselessness. If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or "believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group. Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes, which is a tough job in itself. Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count going to church as one of them. They just have to develop it from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your fellow man. I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person who literally believes in that cartoon figure. So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument. No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament down to a single phrase. Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon. Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you. It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t punish you if you don’t.”, would your moral compass point a different direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral behaviour. Sorry, your argument is far too binary. Those are not the only two choices; not even close. Yes, it’s a very binary argument, but rather than start with a 100 page treatise on the origins of religion, I chose (for the sake of brevity) to boil it down to that. My feeling is that organized religion started at the confluence of “How did we get here?” and “If I invoke some omnipresent being in the sky, maybe these yahoos might actually do what I tell them to do.” You chose to boil the argument down to a mocking cartoon - a cartoon that atheists frequently use for ridicule. Your argument lost everything in that "translation," if it actually had much substance before that. It’s not like I thought I had any chance of changing somebody’s mind (or vice versa), so perhaps I didn’t put my full effort behind it. If we can’t agree on helmet use or disk brakes, what are the odds that we can come to a universal acceptance on the existence or non-existence of God. Which reminds me, I stepped out of this thread a while ago for that very same reason with Andy, and it may be time to do so again with you. I’m sure that the religious people here have a faith strong enough to withstand whatever off the cuff arguments I throw out for atheism... Doubtlessly. But I'll point out, there's only one person here (the usual suspect) who seems to have been making arguments in favor of theism. (Others may have alluded to their beliefs, but done no proselytizing.) In forums like this, ISTM it's usually the atheists who proselytize. That's also true among friends I know, which always strikes me as weird. (BTW, one of those friends of mine is both a slightly aggressive atheist and a pro-helmet fundamentalist!) and I don’t hear too many agnostics saying “Convince me one way or the other.”, so I’m not sure of the point of this discussion. Just do me a favour and consider that faith in God may not be correlated with morality or being a “good” person” Certainly not absolutely 100% correlated. I already made that point, talking about one friend of mine. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On 6/20/2020 8:40 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: *SKIP* Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon. Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you. To further delute whatever you've been talking about, it just asks for an anecdote. Here it goes (it actually quite old, somewhat 25 years old): Religous person has died and then has been resurected. Other religous people have gathered to inquire. First question: "So have you seen God? What does he look like? Does he actually have a beard or something?". First answer: "Well, about that. First, she's black". What, in context of anthropology, makes actual sense. *CUT* I like it! -- - Frank Krygowski |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2020 8:40 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote: with Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: *SKIP* Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon. Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you. To further delute whatever you've been talking about, it just asks for an anecdote. Here it goes (it actually quite old, somewhat 25 years old): Religous person has died and then has been resurected. Other religous people have gathered to inquire. First question: "So have you seen God? What does he look like? Does he actually have a beard or something?". First answer: "Well, about that. First, she's black". What, in context of anthropology, makes actual sense. *CUT* I like it! But you’re ****ed when I say that God has a beard and lives up in the sky? |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2020 12:19 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 10:10 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."? "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia? "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772? "God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington "In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783) "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775 Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day. Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel. Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time. I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either. I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then. Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa. OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects. But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment. So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another? We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more. Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that is pretty much the definition of atheist. As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken. And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly developed moral code than religious people. On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most "Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a wonderful moral code. On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid people with no apparent moral standards at all. Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes. So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of uselessness. If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or "believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group. Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes, which is a tough job in itself. Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count going to church as one of them. They just have to develop it from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your fellow man. I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person who literally believes in that cartoon figure. So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument. No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament down to a single phrase. Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon. Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you. It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t punish you if you don’t.”, would your moral compass point a different direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral behaviour. Sorry, your argument is far too binary. Those are not the only two choices; not even close. Yes, it’s a very binary argument, but rather than start with a 100 page treatise on the origins of religion, I chose (for the sake of brevity) to boil it down to that. My feeling is that organized religion started at the confluence of “How did we get here?” and “If I invoke some omnipresent being in the sky, maybe these yahoos might actually do what I tell them to do.” You chose to boil the argument down to a mocking cartoon - a cartoon that atheists frequently use for ridicule. Your argument lost everything in that "translation," if it actually had much substance before that. It’s not like I thought I had any chance of changing somebody’s mind (or vice versa), so perhaps I didn’t put my full effort behind it. If we can’t agree on helmet use or disk brakes, what are the odds that we can come to a universal acceptance on the existence or non-existence of God. Which reminds me, I stepped out of this thread a while ago for that very same reason with Andy, and it may be time to do so again with you. I’m sure that the religious people here have a faith strong enough to withstand whatever off the cuff arguments I throw out for atheism... Doubtlessly. But I'll point out, there's only one person here (the usual suspect) who seems to have been making arguments in favor of theism. (Others may have alluded to their beliefs, but done no proselytizing.) Note that this entire thread started with Andy asking “I ask that you pray that people will realize that their Creator loves them.”, (which sounds a bit like proselytizing) in a post asking us to believe in a benevolent God. When you wave that particular red flag, it’s no wonder that all you flush out are atheists. In forums like this, ISTM it's usually the atheists who proselytize. That's also true among friends I know, which always strikes me as weird. (BTW, one of those friends of mine is both a slightly aggressive atheist and a pro-helmet fundamentalist!) and I don’t hear too many agnostics saying “Convince me one way or the other.”, so I’m not sure of the point of this discussion. Just do me a favour and consider that faith in God may not be correlated with morality or being a “good” person” Certainly not absolutely 100% correlated. I already made that point, talking about one friend of mine. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On 6/20/2020 2:20 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/20/2020 8:40 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote: with Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: *SKIP* Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon. Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you. To further delute whatever you've been talking about, it just asks for an anecdote. Here it goes (it actually quite old, somewhat 25 years old): Religous person has died and then has been resurected. Other religous people have gathered to inquire. First question: "So have you seen God? What does he look like? Does he actually have a beard or something?". First answer: "Well, about that. First, she's black". What, in context of anthropology, makes actual sense. *CUT* I like it! But you’re ****ed when I say that God has a beard and lives up in the sky? More accurately: I think it's an intellectual copout when atheists say things like "Believers are fools think there's some bearded man up in the sky." It's a straw man argument, and a caricature meant to demean others. It demonstrates weaknesses in logic and empathy. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
On 6/20/2020 2:20 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/20/2020 12:19 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 10:10 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."? "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia? "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772? "God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington "In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783) "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775 Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day. Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel. Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time. I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either. I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then. Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa. OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects. But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment. So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another? We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more. Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that is pretty much the definition of atheist. As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken. And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly developed moral code than religious people. On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most "Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a wonderful moral code. On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid people with no apparent moral standards at all. Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes. So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of uselessness. If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or "believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group. Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes, which is a tough job in itself. Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count going to church as one of them. They just have to develop it from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your fellow man. I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person who literally believes in that cartoon figure. So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument. No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament down to a single phrase. Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon. Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you. It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t punish you if you don’t.”, would your moral compass point a different direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral behaviour. Sorry, your argument is far too binary. Those are not the only two choices; not even close. Yes, it’s a very binary argument, but rather than start with a 100 page treatise on the origins of religion, I chose (for the sake of brevity) to boil it down to that. My feeling is that organized religion started at the confluence of “How did we get here?” and “If I invoke some omnipresent being in the sky, maybe these yahoos might actually do what I tell them to do.” You chose to boil the argument down to a mocking cartoon - a cartoon that atheists frequently use for ridicule. Your argument lost everything in that "translation," if it actually had much substance before that. It’s not like I thought I had any chance of changing somebody’s mind (or vice versa), so perhaps I didn’t put my full effort behind it. If we can’t agree on helmet use or disk brakes, what are the odds that we can come to a universal acceptance on the existence or non-existence of God. Which reminds me, I stepped out of this thread a while ago for that very same reason with Andy, and it may be time to do so again with you. I’m sure that the religious people here have a faith strong enough to withstand whatever off the cuff arguments I throw out for atheism... Doubtlessly. But I'll point out, there's only one person here (the usual suspect) who seems to have been making arguments in favor of theism. (Others may have alluded to their beliefs, but done no proselytizing.) Note that this entire thread started with Andy asking “I ask that you pray that people will realize that their Creator loves them.”, (which sounds a bit like proselytizing) in a post asking us to believe in a benevolent God. When you wave that particular red flag, it’s no wonder that all you flush out are atheists. To me, Andy's statement sounded like a request. Proselytizing is trying to convince others that one's own religious (or non-religious) viewpoint is the correct one. If someone, say, posted a link to a website arguing in favor of their beliefs or non-beliefs, that would be proselytizing. And one characteristic of various militants - whether related to race, gender, religion, politics, whatever - is to see any mention of a related issue as a red flag. If someone makes a statement actively promoting one side of such issues, there's nothing unreasonable about a statement from the other side. But if someone merely mentions such an issue peripherally, it's probably better to take a deep breath and resist temptation. Are atheists good at resisting temptation? ;-) -- - Frank Krygowski |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
Prayer request
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2020 2:20 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/20/2020 12:19 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 10:10 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote: Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote: Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain in alienable rights."? "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia? "The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772? "God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the battle." - George Washington "In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783) "With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties - being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775 Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day. Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson, your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and state and was even called an infidel. Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed. You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time. I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either. I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern mores. They were no less complex back then. Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa. OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects. But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone murder. Some oppose even capital punishment. So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another? We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling, child marriage, homosexual acts and more. Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views? - Frank Krygowski Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that is pretty much the definition of atheist. As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken. And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly developed moral code than religious people. On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most "Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a wonderful moral code. On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid people with no apparent moral standards at all. Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes. So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of uselessness. If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or "believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group. Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes, which is a tough job in itself. Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count going to church as one of them. They just have to develop it from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your fellow man. I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person who literally believes in that cartoon figure. So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument. No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament down to a single phrase. Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon. Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you. It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t punish you if you don’t.”, would your moral compass point a different direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral behaviour. Sorry, your argument is far too binary. Those are not the only two choices; not even close. Yes, it’s a very binary argument, but rather than start with a 100 page treatise on the origins of religion, I chose (for the sake of brevity) to boil it down to that. My feeling is that organized religion started at the confluence of “How did we get here?” and “If I invoke some omnipresent being in the sky, maybe these yahoos might actually do what I tell them to do.” You chose to boil the argument down to a mocking cartoon - a cartoon that atheists frequently use for ridicule. Your argument lost everything in that "translation," if it actually had much substance before that. It’s not like I thought I had any chance of changing somebody’s mind (or vice versa), so perhaps I didn’t put my full effort behind it. If we can’t agree on helmet use or disk brakes, what are the odds that we can come to a universal acceptance on the existence or non-existence of God. Which reminds me, I stepped out of this thread a while ago for that very same reason with Andy, and it may be time to do so again with you. I’m sure that the religious people here have a faith strong enough to withstand whatever off the cuff arguments I throw out for atheism... Doubtlessly. But I'll point out, there's only one person here (the usual suspect) who seems to have been making arguments in favor of theism. (Others may have alluded to their beliefs, but done no proselytizing.) Note that this entire thread started with Andy asking “I ask that you pray that people will realize that their Creator loves them.”, (which sounds a bit like proselytizing) in a post asking us to believe in a benevolent God. When you wave that particular red flag, it’s no wonder that all you flush out are atheists. To me, Andy's statement sounded like a request. Proselytizing is trying to convince others that one's own religious (or non-religious) viewpoint is the correct one. If someone, say, posted a link to a website arguing in favor of their beliefs or non-beliefs, that would be proselytizing. And one characteristic of various militants - whether related to race, gender, religion, politics, whatever - is to see any mention of a related issue as a red flag. If someone makes a statement actively promoting one side of such issues, there's nothing unreasonable about a statement from the other side. But if someone merely mentions such an issue peripherally, it's probably better to take a deep breath and resist temptation. Are atheists good at resisting temptation? ;-) A) After re-reading Andy’s original post, yes, I would consider it proselytizing. He was making arguments for the existence of God and how we should pray to said God to intervene on our affairs down here on Earth. B) Are atheists good at resisting temptation? Some days... I don’t see us as being incredibly different just because we came to different answers to an unanswerable question. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A Dog's Prayer | Simon Jester | UK | 0 | September 20th 19 09:58 PM |
Nativity Prayer of St. Augustine | Claire Towny | UK | 4 | December 25th 09 08:25 PM |
Chalkbot is as worthless as prayer. | Anton Berlin | Racing | 3 | July 8th 09 09:25 PM |
A short prayer.... | Callistus Valerius | Racing | 8 | June 12th 07 02:46 PM |
The Cyclists Prayer | Mark Johnson | UK | 3 | March 9th 05 07:24 PM |