Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 141
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Which of my posts are you making reference?People like me?Aren't those quips part of the "crap"?It would seem that any wisdom in them resulted from the people
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    OK. So, what I'm concluding about your posts is that something is wrong with me because I believe the Bible.

    Is that the appropriate interpretation of your comments?
    I believe you are a perfect manifestation of all that came before you . I believe that you hope there there will be a big payoff for the sacrifice of your free will and for bringing other souls to the net . I also believe that the basic intent to do the right thing comes from a selfish intent .To be loved . To be special , To be safe , fed , To be on the wining team . There is nothing wrong with self preservation . The problem rises from a poor sense of self . like a house divided .. Lost in our one home , Not seeing everything as a part of what and who you are , And not trusting your own feelings , and not being able to live an ecstatic life celebrating your primal and your sense of the divine . It's only natural that if someone is knocked down enough a story of a better after-life is an easy sell . .. I just read somewhere something about religion being for the poor and That the middle class doesn't need it , and that the rich just have to fake it ..... So true .

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    In responding, realize that that will bring us back to my overall question. On what basis do we determine what is right and wrong?
    I believe you must learn from personal insight and experience .
    most of the " Good Guys " That always follow the rules aren't to wise... there just smart enough to know where the real money is .. so they hop in line . But to challenge the authority.. to test the old dogmas thats where you learn the hard lessons . Sometimes ; maybe most times , the old wisdom pans out ,and you understand on a deeper level why something is right or wrong and sometimes when an old value is put to the fire of the science at hand it can dissolve into an obvious ignorant mistake . Either way the prodigal son is just a finer breed than the parroting yes man . You can do the right thing for the wrong reason . I've heard the road to hell is paved with good intentions . I don't agree . It's more likely paved with false securities and the lure of easy money
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    On what basis are we able to determine that people who hold certain beliefs must be 'angry, bitter, and broken'?
    By how they embrace or denounce there world . By there ability to forgive themselves and others. By there open heart and open mind or lack there of

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Why is it that your view of the world is more valid than mine?
    all views are valid and important .

    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Who determines what portion of aged literature is truth versus crap?
    I wish every one had the self esteem to challenge and judge for himself For me I go with my gut , my mind and the help of others


    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    Given the strongly worded determinations about the caricature of me and "people like me," it would seem you are working from some authoritative source. I'm just interested in knowing what is.
    I always have been able to look at things from different angels , I'm an x smoker , I've been loved when I didn't deserve it ,I've listened to hours and hours of Allen Watts , Ram Dass , Terence McKenna , I love the Beatles , I recycle and have a worm bin . I'm trapped in my own morning of lost opportunities and I have squandered my life . My talents have been waisted . Hey ! Don't listen to that impostor ! Did I say I had a worm bin? ..I have no special authority other than I'm being true to you I'm not an agent for God or country I'm just Tryin' to make progress I'm just trying to help
    I would like to thank my mother (She showed me love ), My A.D.D. (Keeps it new), Good luck , ( very under rated ) and the ever expanding universe ! ( Bigger then the both of us ! )
    Last edited by byronchurch; 04/07/2007 at 03:45 AM.
  2. #102  
    ^
    I like your post, probably how I woulda responded if I had more time and better with words. haha
  3. #103  
    In appreciation for backbeat's summation that the question has been asked and answered, I've brought forward the three primary responses to my question of a basis for determining what is right and wrong:

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Within the context of one's social structure.
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    Man's best Creation, Universal Law.
    Quote Originally Posted by byronchurch View Post
    I believe you must learn from personal insight and experience .
    I find Toby's and byronchurch's most compatible with an unintended and undirected universe. Namely, what is right and wrong is a function of one's personal decision, or the consensus of the involed parties. What I find implicit in such a standard is that ultimately, no person is under any obligation to comply. His or her cooperation is only a function of the personal utility found in the terms, with the exception being the enforcement capability of some segment of the population.

    backbeat's offering, on the other hand, offers something more concrete. So much so, that I was initially surprised none of the "science" camp took it to task. The whole I dea that there is some universal, objective truth flies in the face of "undirected and unintended." Humorously, I was the only one openly questioning. My question, though was not opposition, for a sense of universal truth fits well within a theistic worldview.

    And, that's when I realized why there was such vocal opposition to my views, but not backbeat's. There is no objection to objective truth, as long as Man is viewed as the final arbiter. It is the notion of higher authority that repulses. Even the definition of "science" set forth here establishes Man as the final authority, i.e. it must be observable (by Man) and repeatable by many (people).

    NOTE: I am not putting down those standards. As was pointed out in another thread, my trusty Treo resulted from the application of such principles. I am grateful for the scientific process. I just find it peculiar that one would attach morality to it.
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    There is no objection to objective truth, as long as Man is viewed as the final arbiter. It is the notion of higher authority that repulses. Even the definition of "science" set forth here establishes Man as the final authority, i.e. it must be observable (by Man) and repeatable by many (people).
    In an uncaring universe only man can be the final arbiter of what is right for man. The universe would not even blink if a comet wiped out all life on earth.

    Surur
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    In an uncaring universe only man can be the final arbiter of what is right for man. The universe would not even blink if a comet wiped out all life on earth.

    Surur
    I'll take that as an Amen!
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    What I find implicit in such a standard is that ultimately, no person is under any obligation to comply.
    Under what obligation is one to comply with God's Law? Does not free will explicitly require that we can choose whether or not to comply with His will?
    His or her cooperation is only a function of the personal utility found in the terms, with the exception being the enforcement capability of some segment of the population.
    The difference, of course, being that that population can choose to enforce it right here and right now, and not wait until after we're dead for some indeterminate period of time.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Under what obligation is one to comply with God's Law? Does not free will explicitly require that we can choose whether or not to comply with His will?

    The difference, of course, being that that population can choose to enforce it right here and right now, and not wait until after we're dead for some indeterminate period of time.
    The obligation to comply is derived from the basis of authority. Granted, the decision to comply is in the realm of free will. But, one with authority has a right to levy consequences for non-compliance.

    The population has no inherent authority, and therefore no right of enforcement.
  8. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #108  
    As they are minimally based upon the words of John Locke, what do you believe to be the "unalienable rights" Jefferson refers to in the US Declaration of Independence?
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    As they are minimally based upon the words of John Locke, what do you believe to be the "unalienable rights" Jefferson refers to in the US Declaration of Independence?
    If you're referring to the one's "endowed by [the] creator", they include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Locke on the other hand theorized about life, liberty and property.

    Both sources view government as constrained by those rights, with the DOI establishing the government as having a responsiblity to secure such rights.

    Locke's views also affirm that the government is only empowered so far as it has the consent of the governed.

    I think in hind-sight, the idea that property is an inalienable right is a difficult one to defend in an unintended and undirected universe. Extending Surur's thought, the uncaring universe does not care what is in your possession, how it came to be so, nor for how long it remains so. Surely, it was not in your possession at birth. Surely it will not be in your possession following death. Why should your possession of it during the relatively brief period in between be of any consequence?
  10. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    If you're referring to the one's "endowed by [the] creator", they include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    It would appear that you're missing the bigger picture regarding the agnostic school of thought which brought these values into our governmental origin.
  11. #111  
    Our rules, rights and morality are a creation of human time and circumstances. The funny thing is when religious fundamentalists try to impose 1000 year old morality on society today. It leads to outrages against woman's rights for example.

    Surur
  12. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Our rules, rights and morality are a creation of human time and circumstances. The funny thing is when religious fundamentalists try to impose 1000 year old morality on society today.
    Of course not! If that were the case, there would be so-called christian armies slaughtering nonbelievers in their own lands under the guise of salvation.
  13. #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    It would appear that you're missing the bigger picture regarding the agnostic school of thought which brought these values into our governmental origin.
    What am I missing?
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    The obligation to comply is derived from the basis of authority.
    And what basis of authority does God have that a society does not? After all, society is just a derivation of an extended family structure.
    Granted, the decision to comply is in the realm of free will. But, one with authority has a right to levy consequences for non-compliance.
    Just as our social structure has the authority to levy consequences.
    The population has no inherent authority, and therefore no right of enforcement.
    The population has the inherent authority of any organism.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #115  
    I am an atheist and a biologist. Evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to believe in both, quite easily. The only thing that is mutually exclusive is a belief in evolution and a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    In the theory of evolution, there is plenty of room for the action of a god/gods. Some of evolution relies on random events (both within an invididuals genome and random events within the environment). These could easily be controlled or manipulated by a supreme being. Personally, I choose to simply believe that they ARE random events. However, it you have a literal interpretation of the Bible, this would, by definition, preclude any belief in evolution or evolutionary theory.

    I have long been a proponent of teaching religion in a school. My complaint has been teaching religion AS science. The scientific method allows for formulating a hypothesis, and then testing that hypothesis through observation and experimentation. In order for a scientific hypothesis to be "scientific", it MUST be able to be disproven. This is why religion is not science. It is based on faith, and thus a religious belief can't be disproven.

    I think most people would benefit from learning and understanding about religions (the Christian religion and others). I have always believed that including some sort of comparative religion class in school would be beneficial. In this location, teaching a Christian viewpoint of the creation would be perfectly acceptable. But teaching it within a science classroom, as a competing hypothesis of evolutionary theory is misleading, because as I stated, it isn't a scientific hypothesies.
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by cjvitek View Post
    In the theory of evolution, there is plenty of room for the action of a god/gods.
    And Powerful Aliens are probably more likely than omnipotent insubstantial Gods, are they not?

    Surur
  17. #117  
    Since aliens and God are unable to be proven or disproven at this point wouldn't it be a matter of belief either way?
  18. #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Since aliens and God are unable to be proven or disproven at this point wouldn't it be a matter of belief either way?
    Not true. Intelligent alien life is consistent with our understanding of science, whereas gods are not, hence powerful aliens are more likely from a scientific POV.

    Surur
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    Not true. Intelligent alien life is consistent with our understanding of science, whereas gods are not, hence powerful aliens are more likely from a scientific POV.

    Surur
    Please elaborate.
  20. #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    And what basis of authority does God have that a society does not? After all, society is just a derivation of an extended family structure.

    Just as our social structure has the authority to levy consequences.

    The population has the inherent authority of any organism.
    Let's appreciate that if there is a God, at least in the Judeo sense, that God is a creator. A creator's authority is inherent, in that people exists at the discretion of the creator. Whereas societies exist at the discretion of the people.

    Our social structures have ability to levy consequences. But the authority to do so is granted by the governed, and is only as valid as the continual consent of the same.
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions