Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Spirituality

Spirituality

  1. 13 Sep '18 09:59
    I was accused of running away from a thread on this. That is not the case. I would merely insist that the previous thread ran its full course and, both parties unable to really meaningfully continue discussion, let it naturally end. That's neither here nor there.

    The premise I had in the last argument is basically the same as the one here. However, the emphasis will be different.

    (1) Justice transcends rights; indeed, our abstract sense of justice is the origin of the concept of "rights."

    (2) Our rights hinge on the fact that all man is created in the Image of God (there is your spiritualy tie in), and thus it is inherently ugly, cruel, and wrong for him to be abused.

    But, it is also very ugly for a man to abuse his faculties and to abandon rationality; there are natural limits to what a man can do. This is what not only makes tyranny against the will of God, but moreover, makes it impossible for us to condone gross narcotics abuse, bestiality, etc., and other filthy acts, because these fall out of the realm of the tolerable.

    (3) The only rights that we can say that we have are ones which stem from well ordered thought and can be universally agreeable, and this consists of the right of innocent persons to never be imprisoned or harmed for living rationally and freely, nor can they be deprived of their possessions unreasonably.

    i can think of no other "right" beyond the right to existence, to possession of one's property, and to be allowed to talk and relate to those around you, and to use technology and other means to state your opinions very freely.

    To abridge these things is wrong. Though extenuating circumstances could exist, which make even simple statements with a universal quality hard to quantify.

    (4) Some "rights" are not "rights" at all, and, indeed, the concept of "rights" is most often grossly abused, and it is used as a wedge to assault rational institutions of Western civilization and government. it is used as a cudgel to beat up on tradition, and to exaggerate ideas of what man is entitled to.

    (5) Man cannot truly declare what is a "right."

    The second that men contend something is a right, and He does not have the backing of God, or at least the backing of the rationale of the rights iwthin his tradition or his society, he is overstepping the good bounds of civilization and its expectations.

    For just as a tyrannical King threatens the rights of man, so, too, do false rights and false claims become the basis of tyranny!

    There is no tyranny greater than the Communists, the Nazis, the crazed authoritarians that claim they are liberating the world from an Old Order. In their bloodlust, they leave no stone unturned.

    You may claim that they base these things on lies, and that is not difficult to prove in the least, but I merely contend that the things that you insist on as well, that are only slightly less grandiose, can become their own means of atrocities and great disturbances that benefit nobody.

    (6) We should just be moderate people seeking to live as virtuously as possible, and we should resist extremist stances based off of "rights" or any political systems which seek to turn tradition and good behavior on its head. We don't actually need those things at all.

    That is really the gist of some of the points that I had made before.

    I am sorry that this wa snot particularly persuasive and too long -- I merely wanted to elucidate some points and create the basis for a new thread for discussing these issues.
  2. 13 Sep '18 10:39
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    I was accused of running away from a thread on this. That is not the case. I would merely insist that the previous thread ran its full course and, both parties unable to really meaningfully continue discussion, let it naturally end. That's neither here nor there.

    The premise I had in the last argument is basically the same as the one here. However, t ...[text shortened]... nted to elucidate some points and create the basis for a new thread for discussing these issues.
    1 - Nope. Justice is subjective and should be awarded in context with the rights of the individual agreed by society, one does not take precedence over the other.
    2- Nope. God doesn't exist.
    3- Rights can protect minorities when parts of society turn against them, only having 'universally agreeable rights' would remove their protection.
    4 - People who worry about 'tradition' have a misplaced fear. Traditions come and go over time..things move on, there are more important things to worry about.
    5 - I agree, there is no real 'right' as 'right' is subjective.
    6 - Stop worrying about tradition and what is 'good' is subjective. Rules and lifestyles of the past may not be good for the future, sticking to fixed rules is not wise...adaption is key.
  3. 13 Sep '18 11:32
    (1) Sure, justice can be subjective to some degree, because man is flawed, but we all have a very basic sense of justice. No rational person on earth would say that it is good for a man to kill his neighbor or steal his goods just for the pleasure of it, right.

    Even someone who is utterly disinterested in the sporting event at hand would feel weird watching a team win through flagrant cheating, right...

    When something is obvious enough, we all are enflamed because of a proper sense of "justice." And the only people who claim they are not upset by injustice are just being sophists.

    (2) It's fine if you do not believe in God. What am I going to do? Some people just don't...

    You are off to a good start, though, as you have denied justice & rights as being meaningful, as they would be entirely & totally subjective if there is no God. Indeed, the user FMF has also echoed these consistently in another thread.

    So, you'll at least say that I am really onto a good enough start, right?

    If there is no objective truth, no objective rights, no objective justice, surely, you would not mind living in a Christian Republic or in under an extremely fair and great monarch like King Philip II, Emperor Charles V, or Emperor Constantine, right? You'd love it, I am sure, because they were great examples of the power of their traditions, properly executed, and with good intentions, to the best of their ability.

    How could you object to it?

    You have no grounds objecting to it because there is nothing in your own beliefs that would mean that it is superior to theirs, right?
  4. 13 Sep '18 11:57
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    (1) Sure, justice can be subjective to some degree, because man is flawed, but we all have a very basic sense of justice. No rational person on earth would say that it is good for a man to kill his neighbor or steal his goods just for the pleasure of it, right.

    Even someone who is utterly disinterested in the sporting event at hand would feel ...[text shortened]... cause there is nothing in your own beliefs that would mean that it is superior to theirs, right?
    No, justice is subjective to all degrees...Justice doesn't describe if something is a crime or not, justice it the administration of fairness, so once a crime is committed what should be done to the criminal to equate with their crime. Which would vary from person to person.

    Of course I would have grounds to object to other peoples subjective truth...that's the whole point of something being subjective, its personal opinion on a micro and collective opinion on a macro level.

    Here's an example - I think sprouts taste horrible

    The statement is true to me, but I accept its subjective. Would I want to live in a country where I only got to eat sprouts? No of course not.
  5. 13 Sep '18 12:30
    Alright, disregardign some of this other stuff, just to get to a question...

    A question that I am curious about...

    Let's say you lived in a Christian monarchy with state religion and all the works, and while you entirely disagree, you are left alone, allowed to drink alcohol, allowed to visit ladies of the night(if that's your thing); allowed your gay meetup joints & bath houses (if that's your thing); you have access to narcotics because nothing is too strict, and the economy is decent enough. Obviously, you are not represented by the government, and people aren't exceptionally open to your atheism...

    But, ultimately, life is otherwise good.

    Would that be satisfactory? Or would that be something that has to change?

    BTW -- thanks for posting. I appreciate your stuff so far, even though I think we are like night & day.
  6. 13 Sep '18 13:23
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    Alright, disregardign some of this other stuff, just to get to a question...

    A question that I am curious about...

    Let's say you lived in a Christian monarchy with state religion and all the works, and while you entirely disagree, you are left alone, allowed to drink alcohol, allowed to visit ladies of the night(if that's your thing); allowed your ...[text shortened]... thanks for posting. I appreciate your stuff so far, even though I think we are like night & day.
    I'm anti-monarchy and not a fan of religion, but I'm happy to tolerate them on the condition that its what the majority want, they have little power and are benign. If either began to contravene those lines drawn I would argue against them. I would not force my opinion on people, I would try to change their mind.
  7. Standard member dj2becker
    rentrer à la maison
    13 Sep '18 13:32
    Originally posted by @stellspalfie
    I'm anti-monarchy and not a fan of religion, but I'm happy to tolerate them on the condition that its what the majority want, they have little power and are benign. If either began to contravene those lines drawn I would argue against them. I would not force my opinion on people, I would try to change their mind.
    I would try to change their mind.

    If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?
  8. 13 Sep '18 13:45
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    [b]I would try to change their mind.

    If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then should anyone adhere to your moral standard of what is right and wrong?[/b]
    On an individual basis there is no reason to adhere to my morality unless it is beneficial for them or society (if they value society) to do so.
  9. Standard member dj2becker
    rentrer à la maison
    13 Sep '18 13:53
    Originally posted by @stellspalfie
    On an individual basis there is no reason to adhere to my morality unless it is beneficial for them or society (if they value society) to do so.
    If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can judge what is right or wrong, then how do you determine what is right and wrong?
  10. 13 Sep '18 14:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    If you don’t need an objective standard of morality by which you can judge what is right or wrong, then how do you determine what is right and wrong?
    On an individual basis it would be conclusions drawn up from our nature, nurture and a little bit of cognitive reasoning.
  11. Standard member dj2becker
    rentrer à la maison
    13 Sep '18 14:35
    Originally posted by @stellspalfie
    On an individual basis it would be conclusions drawn up from our nature, nurture and a little bit of cognitive reasoning.
    What do you do when "conclusions drawn up from your nature, nurture and a little bit of cognitive reasoning” contradicts with "conclusions drawn up from the nature, nurture and a little bit of cognitive reasoning” for someone else? How do you know that your cognitive reasoning is correct?
  12. 13 Sep '18 14:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    What do you do when "conclusions drawn up from your nature, nurture and a little bit of cognitive reasoning” contradicts with "conclusions drawn up from the nature, nurture and a little bit of cognitive reasoning” for someone else? How do you know that your cognitive reasoning is correct?
    Person 'A' will stick to their conclusions unless person 'B' can persuade them otherwise.
    We don't always come to the best conclusion for ourselves, sometimes it takes another person to provide us with extra information, data or a different perspective for things to feel 'right'.
    You don't know if you are 'correct' you weigh up the information you have and to the best of your ability make a decision. The brain is a prediction machine, it doesn't know anything for sure, it guess's at everything.
  13. Standard member dj2becker
    rentrer à la maison
    14 Sep '18 09:26
    Originally posted by @stellspalfie
    Person 'A' will stick to their conclusions unless person 'B' can persuade them otherwise.
    We don't always come to the best conclusion for ourselves, sometimes it takes another person to provide us with extra information, data or a different perspective for things to feel 'right'.
    You don't know if you are 'correct' you weigh up the information you h ...[text shortened]... The brain is a prediction machine, it doesn't know anything for sure, it guess's at everything.
    Do you think it's impossible to know for sure whether person A or person B is correct in their assessment?
  14. 14 Sep '18 10:19
    Originally posted by @dj2becker
    Do you think it's impossible to know for sure whether person A or person B is correct in their assessment?
    possibly, to err on the side of caution I would say 99.9r is the best we can do.
  15. Standard member dj2becker
    rentrer à la maison
    14 Sep '18 11:07
    Originally posted by @stellspalfie
    possibly, to err on the side of caution I would say 99.9r is the best we can do.
    So you're not 100% sure that it is always wrong to kill someone for no reason?