Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

Andir, the rights of life and liberty are guaranteed (as Jualin stated).  We don't have to pursue them.  That's why slavery and murder are illegal.  The thing we have only a right to pursue is happiness. (as Jualin did in fact say). He made no mention of guaranteed happiness that I saw.  He was talking about how your rights only go as far as they can without restricting the rights of others.  For example, your right to punch things ends where damage begins; you can punch a punching bag all you want, but if you punch a person, you better have a good reason.  This is a fairly standard practice amongst modern governments, not communism.

It's the way that that phrase is worded that bothers me.  He basically stated that one of them can be taken away until everyone has those three.  I agree that freedom only extends up to the point where it infringes on another person.  I've even stated that myself somewhere on this forum.  What bothers me is the way that it's worded... in that I should shelve one of my freedoms so that someone else can have it as well.

[RAM]

I never said anything about it being used for atheism. Not even that 'critical thinking' means 'indoctrination'. I was hoping that someone would attack the "Think about it part"

But you assumed something from the context of the sentence and the thread. That's pretty much the point. You're not saying "there is no god". But the purpose is still to point that out. And in context, that's what kids are going to take from it. It's just as indoctrinating as giving kids a book, saying it's about some guy in the past, and telling them to read it.

The context here is pretty obviously the aforementioned atheist camp, unless they actually call themselves an atheist camp there is absolutely nothing atheist about them. If someone actually wants to be ignorant of their own thoughts then that the small list of gods that could actually exist would be perfect for them... Anyone with any interest in the truth however would be well rid of any such religion...

I do not advocate unrestricted expression. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be "shelved" in some way or another when it prevents another from possessing any of those three. Sometimes, when the interference extends to all three, the responsible individual must face all three of theirs being "shelved" as well.

Whoa now! This is a very strange statement...  Who determines who gives up that which makes them happy, free, or living for someone else?

Because this could be construed as pure communism.

So?

If Bill over here bought the last TV, should Franky have to just deal with the fact there there are no more or should Bill be forced to share?
If Bill over here bought the last of this food product, should Franky have to just deal with the fact there there are no more or should Bill be forced to share?
If Bill over here bought the last gallon of gas, should Franky have to just deal with the fact there there are no more or should Bill be forced to share?
If Bill over here got the last job, should Franky have to just deal with the fact there there are no more or should Bill be forced to share?

There was no mention of force, but if Bill chooses to share then the world will be a better place and Bill will stand to profit from a better world.

Here in the US, we are given the right to pursue Life, Liberty, and Happiness, not the privilege to have it given to us.  This competition is what keeps the economy alive and progressive.

Progressive being child labour, starvation wages, and sweat-shops(pretty much slavery) and the economy is only alive because the government keeps it on life-support. See how long you last without regulation and the ability to outsource your problems to people who don't matter...

  If I could just sit on my ass all day and watch TV while someone else slaves away in a factory you better believe I'm warming up that couch.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the TV has to come from somewhere and everybody else has the same option. It is this sort of thinking that causes efficient labour use to be a bad thing...

This is all a matter of resources.  There are only so many resources in this world.  You cannot possibly divide up the country into perfect sections for people to live on.  Who gets the privilege of lake shore property?  I mean, everyone has a right to it.  Should we dig lakes at the border of everyone's land?  I could go on on this topic, but hopefully you can see my point.

I am not certain I see your point, but I think it is something along the lines of: "Equal volume is not the same as equal quality." and "If everyone is equally privileged then then some resources will not support all users."
Why not make the lake-side land into resorts, everyone is free to spend their holidays there. Or the land spaces would all be of the same value, lake-sides would be high value and end up tiny, low value land would be divided into much larger plots. And of course much of the land would be reserved for various purposes which isn't possible in a purely capitalist system...

This is how I read your statement.  You think it's a responsibility of everyone to make everyone else happy... everyone gets a slice of pie, even the person that didn't help cook it.

And you seem to be implying that it is everybody's sole responsibility to make themselves happy, and if they lack the resources then they deserve to suffer.

Which raises the point that the world was created with a massive capacity for suffering, it seems doubtful that any will that created it would disapprove of suffering... If a god that you like cannot exist then you shouldn't worship any god...

Andir, the rights of life and liberty are guaranteed (as Jualin stated).  We don't have to pursue them.  That's why slavery and murder are illegal.  The thing we have only a right to pursue is happiness. (as Jualin did in fact say). He made no mention of guaranteed happiness that I saw.  He was talking about how your rights only go as far as they can without restricting the rights of others.  For example, your right to punch things ends where damage begins; you can punch a punching bag all you want, but if you punch a person, you better have a good reason.  This is a fairly standard practice amongst modern governments, not communism.

It's the way that that phrase is worded that bothers me.  He basically stated that one of them can be taken away until everyone has those three.  I agree that freedom only extends up to the point where it infringes on another person.  I've even stated that myself somewhere on this forum.  What bothers me is the way that it's worded... in that I should shelve one of my freedoms so that someone else can have it as well.

Freedom is overrated, and doomed, I suggest that you find a way to deal with that...



If a god created the world then the world is that gods creation, if you are unsatisfied with the world that you should be unsatisfied with that god. The safe bet is to disbelieve in a universal will, because the alternative is eternal horror.

[Idiom]

Responses to my mentioning the article

Hold it now. I never said it was radical brainwashing as the cracked article would have you believe, but I still think it will churn out "hard" (hostile-ish) atheists. Heh, following a link from that article, there's a disclaimer to the influx cracked readers "no we're not brainwashing". ROFL. They're not trying to anyway, but it can still have that sort of effect.

"There are two that live at Camp Quest. You can't see them, touch them, hear them, smell them, and they don't leave any visible signs or tracks. If a camper can prove that the unicorns do not exist he or she will win a godless $100 bill (a $100 from prior to 1954 when "In God We Trust" was added to U.S. paper currency)."

Quote from an interview with a camp director. That will churn out "hard" atheists if that's the kind of activities they do, kind of as Muz said, that whether or not it was the point or intentions, the kids are still going to take from it "there is no god". (Then take into account my "thirdly" and you can see how ugly this is). Encouraging free thought and all, but they have their noses shoved in the weaker-est point of whathaveyou, they are going to come away from that opposing whathaveyou.

Secondly, it's a camp that specifies atheism when talking about it's purpose. Paraphrase skimming that interview: 'We are a lot of general things (general things associated with atheism), but specifically atheism too.' It identifies itself as such, and many of the people that go there will be steadfast to bearing such a flag themselves. People will be going there for refuge under "WE ARE ATHEIST". Generally slightly more radical people than the normal slew of atheists. You get a lot of that and those together, and people are brainwashed by the equivalent of having strong patriotism. You know, like those generations and nations of peoples that yell "WE ARE FREE-THINKERS", but in the end they are just a mob following the ideas and ideals they are exposed to the most.

Thirdly, you are going to have a mix of semi-religious people and harshly non-religious people and possibly even some plain religious people there, all pushed to exchange ideas... not going to end well. Someone will be crushed and snap into a very hard almost fanatical position, whether it be their original or not, and you end up with a "hard" whatever when everything they know is wrong.

There are so many things that could lead to the making of a hard atheist there, just like lightning drawn to lightning rod factories. They might not have intended the lightning strike, but the lightning is kind of attracted to whats there.\

edit:

rights to [ideals]

The only universal rights seem to be what you can forge with your own power and skill. Namely because it only takes one **** to come along and make otherwise.

Anyway, the right to not let the other person have the right that they are also entitled to. Whoever comes out on top wins, regardless of what the man on the throne says.

[Muz]

Hmm... time for a discussion. Here's a thought:

Let's say that a god existed. This god is so physically powerful that he can't physically enter the universe.. doing so would be like a man trying to enter his computer. But since he is all powerful, he controls the whole universe at once, through remote control. Being omnipotent puts him outside the limitations of time and space, so let's say he could mess with anything anywhere, at any spot in time.

He is now testing us.. to see our faith in believing in him. It has to be true faith and loyalty, not blind faith. Noting god's omniscient nature, knowledge would be a good thing - jumping off a cliff because of blind faith is wrong, jumping off a cliff because of calculated risk is right.

Also, do note that this god is omniscient... he doesn't test us to see whether we'll pass, because he knows the answer. Probably to point out clearly that we failed... or to make us study for the test or whatever.

And also note that this god is benevolent. And fair. He gives everyone an equal chance to pass or fail, no matter what religion they were born into, even ignoring cultural backgrounds, illiteracy, etc. And if hell is really as bad as people say, you'd have to be a Very Bad Person to fail this test.


Assumptions made, here's a question:
How would this god give us a fair chance of passing the test? While giving others the same chance to fail?

[Idiom]

How would this god give us a fair chance of passing the test? While giving others the same chance to fail?

How could you even measure it? Also, you forgot the ole "He's omniscient, so he just can" thing. Remember you said this was an assumption for the question. That's the whole aspect that seems it should the universe implode or something from paradoxes.

[Sergius]

If I was God of my computer and my Creations started trying to worship me, I would chuck them into the recycle bin for wasting computer cycles instead of doing what I programmed them to do.

[Idiom]

If I was God of my computer and my Creations started trying to worship me, I would chuck them into the recycle bin for wasting computer cycles instead of doing what I programmed them to do.

Dude. Such a waste of opportunity. You know how much fun you could have being a complete dick to those people?

[Jackrabbit]

If I was God of my computer and my Creations started trying to worship me, I would chuck them into the recycle bin for wasting computer cycles instead of doing what I programmed them to do.

There's a name for that defect. It is known as 'Will Wright'.

[Zironic]

If I was God of my computer and my Creations started trying to worship me, I would chuck them into the recycle bin for wasting computer cycles instead of doing what I programmed them to do.

There's a name for that defect. It is known as 'Will Wright'.

No, it's called EA-ism. Will Wright actually had a complex game. BUT THOSE DON'T MAKE MONEY.

[Ampersand]

Once again LegoLord and I get on track, and once again, the thread is sucked into irrelevancies.

[RAM]

Hmm... time for a discussion. Here's a thought:

Let's say that a god existed. This god is so physically powerful that he can't physically enter the universe.. doing so would be like a man trying to enter his computer. But since he is all powerful, he controls the whole universe at once, through remote control. Being omnipotent puts him outside the limitations of time and space, so let's say he could mess with anything anywhere, at any spot in time.

He is now testing us.. to see our faith in believing in him. It has to be true faith and loyalty, not blind faith. Noting god's omniscient nature, knowledge would be a good thing - jumping off a cliff because of blind faith is wrong, jumping off a cliff because of calculated risk is right.

Also, do note that this god is omniscient... he doesn't test us to see whether we'll pass, because he knows the answer. Probably to point out clearly that we failed... or to make us study for the test or whatever.

And also note that this god is benevolent. And fair. He gives everyone an equal chance to pass or fail, no matter what religion they were born into, even ignoring cultural backgrounds, illiteracy, etc. And if hell is really as bad as people say, you'd have to be a Very Bad Person to fail this test.


Assumptions made, here's a question:
How would this god give us a fair chance of passing the test? While giving others the same chance to fail?

I don't see any reference to this entity's perception, but the analogy seems to be to a computer, so I will assume visual and audio reception. I would spend long enough thinking about the issue to come up with something much better. But for now I would suggest just talking to everyone, sure it would be alot of work, but if I wasn't interested then I wouldn't have made it. "Oh yeah, that is the disembodied voice that talks to everyone, sure, the sceptics say it is mass hysteria but anyone who studies it finds that it can tell them stuff that they couldn't possibly know..."

[Andir]

Which raises the point that the world was created with a massive capacity for suffering, it seems doubtful that any will that created it would disapprove of suffering... If a god that you like cannot exist then you shouldn't worship any god...

Andir, the rights of life and liberty are guaranteed (as Jualin stated).  We don't have to pursue them.  That's why slavery and murder are illegal.  The thing we have only a right to pursue is happiness. (as Jualin did in fact say). He made no mention of guaranteed happiness that I saw.  He was talking about how your rights only go as far as they can without restricting the rights of others.  For example, your right to punch things ends where damage begins; you can punch a punching bag all you want, but if you punch a person, you better have a good reason.  This is a fairly standard practice amongst modern governments, not communism.

It's the way that that phrase is worded that bothers me.  He basically stated that one of them can be taken away until everyone has those three.  I agree that freedom only extends up to the point where it infringes on another person.  I've even stated that myself somewhere on this forum.  What bothers me is the way that it's worded... in that I should shelve one of my freedoms so that someone else can have it as well.

Freedom is overrated, and doomed, I suggest that you find a way to deal with that...



If a god created the world then the world is that gods creation, if you are unsatisfied with the world that you should be unsatisfied with that god. The safe bet is to disbelieve in a universal will, because the alternative is eternal horror.

Since there is/are no god(s), the only thing that matters, such as in nature, is natural selection and survival of the fittest.  It's the only way humanity can logically survive... by evolving.  This means that those that don't want to change will find themselves in a position of extinction.  That pretty much defies communistic convention and "feel good" policies.  If we continue to coddle those that will do no work, they raise children that do no work... you can see where that ends up I hope.

[Muz]

I don't see any reference to this entity's perception, but the analogy seems to be to a computer, so I will assume visual and audio reception. I would spend long enough thinking about the issue to come up with something much better. But for now I would suggest just talking to everyone, sure it would be alot of work, but if I wasn't interested then I wouldn't have made it. "Oh yeah, that is the disembodied voice that talks to everyone, sure, the sceptics say it is mass hysteria but anyone who studies it finds that it can tell them stuff that they couldn't possibly know..."

He's omniscient, so he knows everything, it's probably tough to imagine, but he knows every bit of content without needing some UI. Since he's outside our measurement of time, he's got enough time to multitask and all.

But that's there's an interesting point. There's probably dreams.. but I don't get spiritual dreams. There's God speaking to a selected few who put it down into writing.. but that sort of breaks the rule of it being fair to those who don't have contact with the selected few. There's the idea of a hard-wired conscience, but even that's a bit iffy. So, it's a good answer.

If I was God of my computer and my Creations started trying to worship me, I would chuck them into the recycle bin for wasting computer cycles instead of doing what I programmed them to do.

A lot of religions have the assumption that God created people to test whether they'd worship him. So, yeah, they're doing their job

[Ampersand]

Since there is/are no god(s), the only thing that matters, such as in nature, is natural selection and survival of the fittest.  It's the only way humanity can logically survive... by evolving.  This means that those that don't want to change will find themselves in a position of extinction.  That pretty much defies communistic convention and "feel good" policies.  If we continue to coddle those that will do no work, they raise children that do no work... you can see where that ends up I hope.

The argument that, if god does not exist then life has no meaning is extraordinarily bad.

You, as a conscious thinking person are free to reach for the stars and make meaning where there had been none before. That is our gift, and our curse, to be beyond the animal and capable of freeing ourselves from the endless Darwinian cycle of predator and prey, yet able to stare into the endless skies and see how vast and empty and devoid of inherent meaning the universe is. We can succumb to this nihilism, or we can create for ourselves, individually, a purpose, a role to play, however small, and find meaning within, rather than without.

[Starver]

"There are two that live at Camp Quest. You can't see them, touch them, hear them, smell them, and they don't leave any visible signs or tracks. If a camper can prove that the unicorns do not exist he or she will win a godless $100 bill (a $100 from prior to 1954 when "In God We Trust" was added to U.S. paper currency)."

Quote from an interview with a camp director. That will churn out "hard" atheists if that's the kind of activities they do, kind of as Muz said, that whether or not it was the point or intentions, the kids are still going to take from it "there is no god". (Then take into account my "thirdly" and you can see how ugly this is). Encouraging free thought and all, but they have their noses shoved in the weaker-est point of whathaveyou, they are going to come away from that opposing whathaveyou.

As I understand it, (I heard abotu the above in the recent news of the UK version of the camp), it's more along the lines of "can one construct an argument that refutes[1] the reported belief in the unicorns?".  The $100 bill (with the side-swipe at the In Godf We Trust, for good measure) is incentive, but the whole point will be that the critical thinking from the councillers/etc will counteract any "of course they don't" arguments.  In fact there is essentially no way to disprove that which is also unprovable.  (Well, in this situation.)  Nobody will (probably) ever be rewarded for becoming a Hard Atheist, but instead will be confronted with the critical thinking which the camp is supposed to espouse.  Soft atheism (some would say agnosticism, but I would argue the difference) thus triumphs over the hard-nosed atheism that it has been suggested would result.


[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute, as opposed to purely deny.  This word gets misused, so I thought I better clarify.