|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2018 6:18:04 GMT
This discussion board is of course a place to discuss religion, faith and spirituality. Oh wait, that's not all, it's also a place to discuss atheism. That is natural enough. How can you address any thesis without addressing its antithesis anyway? Over time any discussion can get stale. People get tired of listening to the other side. They can become stubborn and dismissive. Worse than that they can lose sight of the issues they all need to address. They can lose sight of the reasons the discussion started in the first place. When "religion" began it might well have been more about things like whether there are any rules, where they came from, what assurance is there they will be followed, can they be changed, by whom, and so on. All of which does get discussed on this board somewhat. Some think rules come from a god, some think they arise "naturally." I think it might significantly refresh the process if we set aside some issues and concentrated on others. We can get back to whether there is a god and what its properties are later. I think the underlying question whether there are any rules needs direct attention. To Have Rules or Not, That Is the Question
(for the moment anyway)
It appears inevitable that wherever there are rules there will be some opposition to them. In some cases the complaints might be trivial, in others there might be a total rejection of all the rules, or all between. With very few exceptions the people on this board have what they consider rules. Some Christians, some atheists, and others all have their versions of rules with obvious differences. A curious development from time to time however is that two parties form, call them group 'A' and group 'B,' where the rules of group 'B' are designed only to ensure no one has to follow the rules of group 'A.' The central issue really then is to have rules or not. One side develops that assembles rules and another side develops that dissembles them. It appears to "make sense" and "work out" in that "power" is "balanced." The people who make and enforce the rules are kept in certain bounds, kept from taking "advantage" of their position by misusing it. There is always someone there to challenge their work. Before the Republican Party there was the Whig Party. One became the other after Abraham Lincoln. It, before and after Lincoln, was the party of a strong central government (the one that favored rules). The Democratic party of the time opposed them (compare group 'B' somewhat). You might complain at this point that I have it backward all through. Everyone knows the Democrats favor a large government and the Republicans favor a minimal role for government. Yes, that is true today mostly, but that didn't happen till much later. What caused the reversal was the observation over a long time that government can give people things. At first it was just a "job" in the military, but it expanded later. Having realized that, the Democratic Party became a full fledged "group B" that used its rules and power to ensure no one had to follow the rules of "group A." The attitudes of quite many Democrats are not that there are rules to marriage that need to be followed by whatever gender, but that no one has to follow them. They can make up their own. They can then break their own rules later. Marriage today is all about letting the government settle any issues, letting government manage the charges of family responsibilities, all while adults come and go as they have a whim. I have much more to say on this especially about religion and what role it has in all this, but I want you to see the underlying issues and whether you have any comments on them.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 14, 2018 7:50:28 GMT
TL:DR
WTF is a 'Christian Atheist'?
|
|
Eλευθερί
Junior Member
@eleutheri
Posts: 3,710
Likes: 1,670
|
Post by Eλευθερί on Jun 14, 2018 8:05:14 GMT
Can I get the 3 1/2 minutes it took to read that back?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 14, 2018 8:34:14 GMT
TL:DR WTF is a 'Christian Atheist'? He mentioned that yesterday too. First I recall hearing about it. I was doubtful at first, too, but after finding the brief Wikipedia page about "Christian atheism" and reading it, it makes sense (although I'm certainly not amenable to it personally). In a nutshell, it refers to atheists who value Jesus and Christianity ideologically, ethically, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 14, 2018 8:37:52 GMT
You can't not have rules. Anarchy isn't possible, because some group of people would always organize and control via force.
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jun 14, 2018 8:51:29 GMT
Arlon, I'd like to hear your opinion on selective atheism.
Selective atheists are people who only believe in one God.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 14, 2018 9:21:51 GMT
I think Arlon confuses 'rules' with 'expectations'.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2018 11:57:12 GMT
Arlon, I'd like to hear your opinion on selective atheism. Selective atheists are people who only believe in one God. That is a very good question. Just as there are "elementary atheists" there are "elementary theists" who do not read well above an elementary level. Their concept of god is necessarily anthropomorphic. Their knowledge of their religion and their god is fraught with the superficial details that they can learn by rote without much understanding. A startling example we all might recognize recently is the "Christian" on the "right" who is vehemently opposed to Islam. Because they are concentrated on the superficial details of those religions they see more differences than similarities. They can fail to understand that they have more in common with Islam on the essential things such as opposing same sex marriage and abortion than they have in common with their atheist neighbors. You have probably noticed that "Christianity" is unusually anthropomorphic in remarkable contrast to Judaism. Judaism of course was at the forefront of changing religion from the worship of idols to adherence to an abstract ethical system that most modern religions are. Obviously not all "Christians" are at the same reading level and there is often sharp disagreement among them whether Jesus is "the" god or has some more interlocutorial role. Many believe the anthropomorphic nature of Christianity is just an accommodation to children and adults with little ability to read and understand abstract concepts. I dislike the term "selective atheist." Others might dislike the term "elementary Christian." I think my term is more accurate because they are participating in a learning process of a systematic set of beliefs, although they obviously have some long way to go. Notice that moving the American embassy to Jerusalem was an especially "selective atheist" or "elementary Christian" thing to do. Trump supporters are not intelligent and confuse the secular state of Israel with any religion or religious values. Obviously the neighboring Arabs have stronger religious values.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 14, 2018 12:03:22 GMT
Arlon10 "Adherence to an abstract ethical system" that obtains via?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2018 12:04:23 GMT
You can't not have rules. Anarchy isn't possible, because some group of people would always organize and control via force. Are you saying "control happens" therefore counter control must happen? That is a curious development I would like people to notice before I move on to religion. Are you noticing which are the controllers and which are the counter controllers?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 14, 2018 12:12:31 GMT
You can't not have rules. Anarchy isn't possible, because some group of people would always organize and control via force. Are you saying "control happens" therefore counter control must happen? No. What I'm saying is that if we put together a buch of folks where we say "Okay, from this point on, we're going to have no rules (no laws, basically)," that's not going to last very long, because some subset of those people are always going to say, "Hey--if we organize, we can take control of these other folks by force. We wouldn't even have to do anything but stay organized and threaten force. We can get them to do all the work for us." And so on. So a society with no rules (no laws) isn't possible. The folks who organize and take control by force are going to have rules (laws).
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2018 12:15:54 GMT
Arlon10 "Adherence to an abstract ethical system" that obtains via? It's no simple thing to learn, I'll grant that. I've mentioned it too many times already, but I have met atheists who believe they could compose a set of commandments much like God's "Ten Commandments" except without rules that recognize any god. If you want an example of "intelligent" atheists there you go. I expect and hope we will get some of those atheists here. We have the common ground of believing in a set of rules. We can examine whence those rules came later.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 14, 2018 12:18:21 GMT
Arlon10 "Adherence to an abstract ethical system" that obtains via? It's no simple thing to learn, I'll grant that. I've mentioned it too many times already, but I have met atheists who believe they could compose a set of commandments much like God's "Ten Commandments" except without rules that recognize any god. If you want an example of "intelligent" atheists there you go. I expect and hope we will get some of those atheists here. We have the common ground of believing in a set of rules. We can examine whence those rules came later.That's what I was asking you. So you're answering to tell me that you'll answer the question later. Okay.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2018 12:19:52 GMT
Are you saying "control happens" therefore counter control must happen? No. What I'm saying is that if we put together a buch of folks where we say "Okay, from this point on, we're going to have no rules (no laws, basically)," that's not going to last very long, because some subset of those people are always going to say, "Hey--if we organize, we can take control of these other folks by force. We wouldn't even have to do anything but stay organized and threaten force. We can get them to do all the work for us." And so on. So a society with no rules (no laws) isn't possible. The folks who organize and take control by force are going to have rules (laws). I agree with you that control happens. Can you not also see that counter control happens? I intend to carefully examine the two phenomena considered together, and what role religion has played.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2018 12:22:12 GMT
It's no simple thing to learn, I'll grant that. I've mentioned it too many times already, but I have met atheists who believe they could compose a set of commandments much like God's "Ten Commandments" except without rules that recognize any god. If you want an example of "intelligent" atheists there you go. I expect and hope we will get some of those atheists here. We have the common ground of believing in a set of rules. We can examine whence those rules came later.That's what I was asking you. So you're answering to tell me that you'll answer the question later. Okay. I just got some new computer equipment, new to me anyway, yet it is very good and requires my attention today. If you will have patience, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2018 12:28:58 GMT
Can I get the 3 1/2 minutes it took to read that back? Just be glad it wasn't 3.5 minutes of video. Doing that all day would really burn up a data plan.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jun 14, 2018 12:34:41 GMT
I think Arlon confuses 'rules' with 'expectations'. I wouldn't be the only one in history to do that.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 14, 2018 17:02:10 GMT
Ideally, rules should be for protecting human rights. That's what many people view rules to be.
However, rules have been made simply for the benefit of both extremes, both of whom are protected by what might best be called "supernatural mob structures". They are like the ants in a giant colony that exists in communication with an unseen force, a queen ant, if you will, or perhaps two or three such queens, and the queens aren't necessarily female, but simply cognitive forces to which humans give information to.
We have been brainwashed by the very forces working for the "queens" to believe they don't exist, and even those high up the ladder of the colony are out of control in being brainwashed.
Thus, rules only serve for an evil to lie, cheat, steal, kill, and destroy. These "queens" are demons in service of devil or devils, and are just as brainwashed.
Look at courts and lawyers. Not one law is for protection of human rights. All law is for mob rule. The laws given to Moses are defunct because of humans being totally under the control of demons. I have seen many instances of two or more witnesses testifying against one, and not one time, not once, have the two or more told the truth.
Lawyers aren't concerned with truth or reality or human rights. They only want to keep the machine of hate going. Same for judges.
Democrats and Republicans only pretend to be at each other's throats. They both connive to keep the outsiders down, foolishly believing the demons give brownie points.
We have had the worst and least inspired stewards in charge for decades at least, probably centuries.
It would be nice if rules were honestly for the good of the people, but they aren't. They're for the benefit of gangs and mobs in this existence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2018 18:33:01 GMT
Everyone knows the Democrats favor a large government and the Republicans favor a minimal role for government. This is one of those things that most people believe but which is just not so. No, this is also not the case. Very few people believe that there should be no rules to marriage and everyone should simply do whatever they want. Marriage is fundamentally a legal institution, and has been for a very long time. As such, obviously the government's job is to regulate it.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 14, 2018 21:15:16 GMT
I didn't even catch that part. Why is he talking about "rules to marriage"?? What an odd thing to bring up.
|
|