In the Absence of God: Human rights is a concept without meaning... - Page 26

frodly · #**251** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius Infinitum

ROFLMNAO... Leftists...

Prove it!!

*WARNING! Holding your breath waiting on a valid basis, will result in serious bodily injury...*

frodly · #**252** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frodly

Prove it!!

*WARNING! Holding your breath waiting on a valid basis, will result in serious bodily injury...*

I have now waited the 30 seconds you have to wait between posts, and publius has not responded!

pubi's concession is accepted and duly noted!

ROFRJKAGJSLSJKDL.......Publiuses

White Fox · #**253** (**permalink**) 05-06-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

But let's face it, PI. The tables have turned. Despite persecution, Galileo's ideas lived. Science became so big that even the Church stopped persecuting it.
Even the renaissance "principles" you preach are evidence of a dawn of reason (even if they are a bit steeped in faith and wishful thinking, they embody more reason than say the theocratic worldview before them).

Reason is winning... and maybe that gets you guys concerned with your "end of the world" prophecies...
But I think it's also just a little scary to you that all this reason, the science and all, is leading to a better life for more people more of the time. And while there is still violence and there are still wars... the rates are miniscule when compared to other times in history when controlling for population growth.

Your thought reflects the Progressive belief held before WWI that reason is quickly stomping out everything else and that it will eventually lead to a perfect Utopian society year by year. The problem with this is WWI of course. All of that reason that people thought they believed in lead to the deaths of millions of people. What about WWII as well. It was a direct result of people putting faith and emotion above reason. People didn't follow Hitler because what he said made sense or because they thought it did, they followed him because he fed their hates, their fears, and the prejudices. So I don't know why you think this "end of the world" scenario won't happen because we've all been enlightened, it's happened like this many times before.

JeffLV · #**254** (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Publius Infinitum

It's not reasoning of any kind, Jeff... It's just a subjective opinion designed to appeal to what she feels is a popular opinion...

I just did..

Based upon her post; wherein she said she read the exchange and felt that you carried the day... what she didn't do Jeff is say why... which is the basis of my query.

Look I've no problem with her posting a baseless opinion... All I did was to prove it baseless, by asking her to support; and yes I asked because I knew she could not... (Cruel huh...

)

But look sis, don't feel bad; even you know you were helpless to do much more than shake your head in disapproval, despite your emtpy protestations... And while I'm sure there is something positive that might come from an empty grope such as that adanced by your comrade; its just that whatever it is, is meaningless; BUT! Whatever that is, it's at least something to which you may cling...

So ya've got THAT goin' for ya...

ROFLMNAO... Leftists...

Ya did the BEST YOU COULD Jeff... God bless ya!

I was more mocking some highlighted failures in your argument rather than defending her argument. Although in a rather circular way, the mocking of your argument does defend her argument at the same time, but that was not the intent.

TTFN PI. Always a pleasure to have a good ROFLMNAO every once in a while with you.

JavaBlack · #**255** (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox

Your thought reflects the Progressive belief held before WWI that reason is quickly stomping out everything else and that it will eventually lead to a perfect Utopian society year by year..

Who has claimed anything Utopian will come about?
The fact of the matter is that science and reason have been improving our lives. There's no indication that they will ever lead to perfection but getting rid of them now in favor of the old and failed ways of mysticism and rain-god-appeasing would definitely be detrimental.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox

The problem with this is WWI of course. All of that reason that people thought they believed in lead to the deaths of millions of people. What about WWII as well...

And well before the world wars there were conflicts on top of conflicts. There will likely be more.
What's interesting is that the reaction to the world wars seems to be an attempt to learn from them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox

It was a direct result of people putting faith and emotion above reason. People didn't follow Hitler because what he said made sense or because they thought it did, they followed him because he fed their hates, their fears, and the prejudices.

Ummmm... I agree. That's why I prefer science and reason.
Not that I expect people to not be emotional and faithful... But when we all check and balance each other, we might just be able to get around that, at least with big decisions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox

So I don't know why you think this "end of the world" scenario won't happen because we've all been enlightened, it's happened like this many times before.

And the world has not ended. Sure, MAYBE it will end from some future stupidity. I bet you the trigger of any possible scenario has more to do with blind faith than with science (even if science is the tool that builds the tools for the job, it will be faith that pulls the trigger).

Science is not about "being enlightened." It's about continuing to learn.You're getting the perspectives mixed up. It's PI's theological/philosophical mumbo jumbo that claims to know all and know all of humanity's limits.

White Fox · #**256** (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

Who has claimed anything Utopian will come about?
The fact of the matter is that science and reason have been improving our lives. There's no indication that they will ever lead to perfection but getting rid of them now in favor of the old and failed ways of mysticism and rain-god-appeasing would definitely be detrimental.

And well before the world wars there were conflicts on top of conflicts. There will likely be more.
What's interesting is that the reaction to the world wars seems to be an attempt to learn from them.

Ummmm... I agree. That's why I prefer science and reason.
Not that I expect people to not be emotional and faithful... But when we all check and balance each other, we might just be able to get around that, at least with big decisions.

And the world has not ended. Sure, MAYBE it will end from some future stupidity. I bet you the trigger of any possible scenario has more to do with blind faith than with science (even if science is the tool that builds the tools for the job, it will be faith that pulls the trigger).

Science is not about "being enlightened." It's about continuing to learn.You're getting the perspectives mixed up. It's PI's theological/philosophical mumbo jumbo that claims to know all and know all of humanity's limits.

That is the logical conclusion to that belief, because eventually it holds that logic and reason can overcome human nature.

No matter how far we progress there will always be armed conflict.

While I support logic and reason, I realize that they will not alway be the guiding factor in many human decisions. People quite often act with their passions and emotions rather than being reasonable. This is where our "doom's day" theory comes from. Once people feel the need to get rid of natural rights or something like that we will all be put under the rule of brutal dictators who will imprison if not kill any and all dissenters.

So we claim to know humanity's limits. While we might be a little off, it seems that conservatives have a better idea of what human nature is, and they recognize the limitations imposed by that. Why do you think Communism and all those socialist communes they had in the 19th century fail? Human nature puts limits on human kind's capacity to achieve progress.

JavaBlack · #**257** (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox

That is the logical conclusion to that belief, because eventually it holds that logic and reason can overcome human nature.

Logic and reason can formulate systems that better harness human nature. It can also do the opposite.
Note the use of "can" instead of "will". Nothing is destined.
And what exactly in human nature needs to be "overcome". Most of the evils we see in human existence are not directly human nature but symptoms of human nature under specific circumstances... or even more often aberrations occurring in certain individuals in accordance with human nature under certain circumstances and as specific to that individuals genetic/social/historical makeup.

Your critique still does not explain how faith thinking is any better, as we've seen those results. Is that rule by faith not just a harnessing of things reason and science are beginning to understand as picked up through experience rather than through study and then understood through rationalization rather than reason?

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox

No matter how far we progress there will always be armed conflict.

There will always be crime. There will always be suffering. Not news.
The point is that all these things can be reduced through the application of science and reason. In many cases they have been.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox

While I support logic and reason, I realize that they will not alway be the guiding factor in many human decisions. People quite often act with their passions and emotions rather than being reasonable. This is where our "doom's day" theory comes from. Once people feel the need to get rid of natural rights or something like that we will all be put under the rule of brutal dictators who will imprison if not kill any and all dissenters.

Thus the importance of encouraging critical thinking and education... rather than taking the cynical point of view and attempting to limit the potential of non-elites to take any part.
But let's be more honest about where "doom's day" "theory" comes from... The Bible. There is a strong need in Christians to believe in this end time. I once was in that trap... and I was still looking for signs of Revelation fora year after I finally broke with the faith... It's amazing how those stories can shape one's perception.
I'm all for keeping most of what people call "natural rights". But let's be honest. No ideological group is consistent with the application of when to limit them and when not to, at least not in terms of "principle" rather than pragmatism. And that is because they do not exist outside of pragmatism. I fail to see how pretending these rights come from an alleged God rather than humanity's own self interest does anything to defend them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox

So we claim to know humanity's limits. While we might be a little off, it seems that conservatives have a better idea of what human nature is, and they recognize the limitations imposed by that. Why do you think Communism and all those socialist communes they had in the 19th century fail? Human nature puts limits on human kind's capacity to achieve progress.

Liberals aren't much different from conservatives in that they are human.
My take on Marx: He did a fine job of noting the problems in capitalism, especially in the early industrial days... but his dream of utopia was just wishful thinking. He made a religion out of it. A lot of liberals do that.
But for conservatives it's the norm. There's no seperating the ideological "theories" from the mumbo jumbo.
Conservatives are too likely to see a historical pattern and assume "human nature" when something occurs again leading to simplistic statements of things like war being human nature. Does human nature cause war? Yes, when combined with other elements. But there is not a human nature that automatically leads to war anymore than there is some historical pattern of conflict that is magically resolved into Utopia when workers unite (I really don't get how Marx came to that conclusion...).
Conservatives eventually impose more limits on humanity due to their out-of-control cynicism, their overconfidence in tradition, and their fear of losing control. Hell, the irony of some modern liberals is that they are taking on the same qualities while we end up with these radical conservatives that sound more like yesterday's Marxists.

hairymarx · #**258** (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 11:50 AM

You make a false assumption that Marxism is deterministic ... it is not. Conflict is not necessarily "magically resolved into Utopia when workers unite (I really don't get how Marx came to that conclusion)". The reason being is that he didn't come to that conclusion. He didn't make a religion out of some kind of dream of Utopia as you claim. All of his life he argued against the ideas of the Utopian socialists. Marx was clear that his ideas shouldn't be read as some kind of religious text set in stone, rather he was at pains to point out that his philosophical method was intended as a guide for action. Your reading of Marx represents a common misunderstanding of his thought.

White Fox · #**259** (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

Logic and reason can formulate systems that better harness human nature. It can also do the opposite.
Note the use of "can" instead of "will". Nothing is destined.
And what exactly in human nature needs to be "overcome". Most of the evils we see in human existence are not directly human nature but symptoms of human nature under specific circumstances... or even more often aberrations occurring in certain individuals in accordance with human nature under certain circumstances and as specific to that individuals genetic/social/historical makeup.

That better harness human nature? It is human nature to look out for one's self and family members. People make decisions that further their own self interest. The system that I think best harnesses that is a capitalist system where everybody agrees (under the contract of government) to respect one another's rights as human beings. Progressives want to overcome this aspect of human nature through the application of reason through such arguments like "why can't we all share the wealth" and "let's all agree to abandon our self -interest and contribute to the whole." One can, using logic, predict that, if everybody agreed to work for the collective, everybody would have an equal share of wealth and everything would be great. However, you cannot use this argument because it is in people's nature to look out for themselves, and in this case, take advantage of the collective for their own interests (i.e. being lazy and still getting your share).

If you are going to argue that human nature only has bad sides in the situation, then I would argue that the situation is economic scarcity, and that is what is ingrained in our DNA/nature. Even if we were to end scarcity once and for all with some futuristic device that would give us whatever we wanted, people would still want what other people had and would want to secure our future; it's for our future protection.

This argument can lead to the proposition of eugenics and changing human nature to work better in a system where scarcity no longer exists. If anyone can honestly support this then what would they propose the non-improved humans do? It's fundamentally problematic.

Quote:

Your critique still does not explain how faith thinking is any better, as we've seen those results. Is that rule by faith not just a harnessing of things reason and science are beginning to understand as picked up through experience rather than through study and then understood through rationalization rather than reason?

I am not arguing that faith is better than reason. Reason is always preferable. Rationalization is not truly reason, and is usually pro tanto invalid, meaning it does not account for every part of the argument. Reason leads people to the development of natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property. It is a complex line of logic, but is linear and logically sound. If you want to see the reason behind it, you should read Locke's Two Treatises on Civil Government.

Quote:

There will always be crime. There will always be suffering. Not news.
The point is that all these things can be reduced through the application of science and reason. In many cases they have been.

I agree, to an extent it can.

Quote:

Thus the importance of encouraging critical thinking and education... rather than taking the cynical point of view and attempting to limit the potential of non-elites to take any part.
But let's be more honest about where "doom's day" "theory" comes from... The Bible. There is a strong need in Christians to believe in this end time. I once was in that trap... and I was still looking for signs of Revelation fora year after I finally broke with the faith... It's amazing how those stories can shape one's perception.
I'm all for keeping most of what people call "natural rights". But let's be honest. No ideological group is consistent with the application of when to limit them and when not to, at least not in terms of "principle" rather than pragmatism. And that is because they do not exist outside of pragmatism. I fail to see how pretending these rights come from an alleged God rather than humanity's own self interest does anything to defend them.

You are attempting to associate my beliefs with Christianity. I believe solely in a moral interpretation of the Bible, I go to Church on Christmas and sometimes on Easter, I do not believe in any of the dooms day theories in the Bible. I am consistent in my belief that natural right belong to everyone who has not violated someone else's rights. Pragmatism is evil, does not believe in anything, and is Fascist/Communist/Nazi/totalitarian. Natural rights come from humanity's own self interest and the compact of civil government.

Quote:

Liberals aren't much different from conservatives in that they are human.
My take on Marx: He did a fine job of noting the problems in capitalism, especially in the early industrial days... but his dream of utopia was just wishful thinking. He made a religion out of it. A lot of liberals do that.
But for conservatives it's the norm. There's no seperating the ideological "theories" from the mumbo jumbo.

I agree with your interpretation of Marx, he did a fine job with noting the problems of capitalism, which it does have. He did make a religion out of it. It is the Sorelian apocalyptic text, everyone has to believe in it for it to come true. However, I don't see how religion is the conservative norm. We don't "worship" natural rights, we think they are logical, and that the results of not having them end in "doom's day" scenarios.

Quote:

Conservatives are too likely to see a historical pattern and assume "human nature" when something occurs again leading to simplistic statements of things like war being human nature. Does human nature cause war? Yes, when combined with other elements. But there is not a human nature that automatically leads to war anymore than there is some historical pattern of conflict that is magically resolved into Utopia when workers unite (I really don't get how Marx came to that conclusion...).
Conservatives eventually impose more limits on humanity due to their out-of-control cynicism, their overconfidence in tradition, and their fear of losing control. Hell, the irony of some modern liberals is that they are taking on the same qualities while we end up with these radical conservatives that sound more like yesterday's Marxists.

See the first part of this post for my take on the situations that lead to conflict when combined with human nature.

(Marx didn't really know how he came to that conclusion either, if you read Das Kapital.)

Philisophical conservatives such as Burke are overconfident in tradition. Mostly, Burke believed that any system of government was good if it already was being practiced by the people living their. Fanatical Christians worship their Christian traditions (surprise). Mostly, I think that pure, Lockeian conservatives believe in natural rights and the importance of those. I think that pure liberal/socialists believe in the opposite. I also think that some to the left, the supporters of mixed-economies, don't emphasize faith over reason, but that the socialist kind do.

If you ever meet a radical conservative that sounds like a hard-liner Marxist, he's secretly a leftist in disguise.

Edit: 100th post!

frodly · #**260** (**permalink**) 05-07-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by White Fox

That better harness human nature? It is human nature to look out for one's self and family members. People make decisions that further their own self interest. The system that I think best harnesses that is a capitalist system where everybody agrees (under the contract of government) to respect one another's rights as human beings. Progressives want to overcome this aspect of human nature through the application of reason through such arguments like "why can't we all share the wealth" and "let's all agree to abandon our self -interest and contribute to the whole." One can, using logic, predict that, if everybody agreed to work for the collective, everybody would have an equal share of wealth and everything would be great. However, you cannot use this argument because it is in people's nature to look out for themselves, and in this case, take advantage of the collective for their own interests (i.e. being lazy and still getting your share).

If you are going to argue that human nature only has bad sides in the situation, then I would argue that the situation is economic scarcity, and that is what is ingrained in our DNA/nature. Even if we were to end scarcity once and for all with some futuristic device that would give us whatever we wanted, people would still want what other people had and would want to secure our future; it's for our future protection.

This argument can lead to the proposition of eugenics and changing human nature to work better in a system where scarcity no longer exists. If anyone can honestly support this then what would they propose the non-improved humans do? It's fundamentally problematic.

I am not arguing that faith is better than reason. Reason is always preferable. Rationalization is not truly reason, and is usually pro tanto invalid, meaning it does not account for every part of the argument. Reason leads people to the development of natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property. It is a complex line of logic, but is linear and logically sound. If you want to see the reason behind it, you should read Locke's Two Treatises on Civil Government.

I agree, to an extent it can.

You are attempting to associate my beliefs with Christianity. I believe solely in a moral interpretation of the Bible, I go to Church on Christmas and sometimes on Easter, I do not believe in any of the dooms day theories in the Bible. I am consistent in my belief that natural right belong to everyone who has not violated someone else's rights. Pragmatism is evil, does not believe in anything, and is Fascist/Communist/Nazi/totalitarian. Natural rights come from humanity's own self interest and the compact of civil government.

I agree with your interpretation of Marx, he did a fine job with noting the problems of capitalism, which it does have. He did make a religion out of it. It is the Sorelian apocalyptic text, everyone has to believe in it for it to come true. However, I don't see how religion is the conservative norm. We don't "worship" natural rights, we think they are logical, and that the results of not having them end in "doom's day" scenarios.

See the first part of this post for my take on the situations that lead to conflict when combined with human nature.

(Marx didn't really know how he came to that conclusion either, if you read Das Kapital.)

Philisophical conservatives such as Burke are overconfident in tradition. Mostly, Burke believed that any system of government was good if it already was being practiced by the people living their. Fanatical Christians worship their Christian traditions (surprise). Mostly, I think that pure, Lockeian conservatives believe in natural rights and the importance of those. I think that pure liberal/socialists believe in the opposite. I also think that some to the left, the supporters of mixed-economies, don't emphasize faith over reason, but that the socialist kind do.

If you ever meet a radical conservative that sounds like a hard-liner Marxist, he's secretly a leftist in disguise.

Edit: 100th post!

Congratulations on your 100th post. It is good to have you here. You are quickly becoming one of my favorite conservative posters.

It seems alot(if not most of) the very conservative posters here start every argument from the premise that they know they are right, and you are stupid for disagreeing with them. So their entire post is a giant condescension with little to back up their argument, since they are so assured of their being correct they feel no need to offer evidence or logic. One conservative poster is guilty of this in particular, no need to name him we all know who I am talking about! Some of hard line liberals are guilty of this as well.

But you offer your argument in a very clear and unpretentious way and I commend you! Even though I disagree with you on many issues!