The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Human rights have no foundation > Comments

Human rights have no foundation : Comments

By Peter Sellick, published 12/7/2013

While justice is embedded in a community and upheld by a community for the good of all, rights are manufactured, often in the United Nations, and float down from on high.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
why will you not answer the big question for christains..How many angles can dance on the end of a pin? Why do you refuse to acknowlegde this important topic?
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 12 July 2013 12:08:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter you state "It would seem that a secularised society could not fall back on what is understood to be a religious foundation for justice, i.e. that all are made in the image of God. But this conclusion has to assume that religious foundations are devoid of truth despite their long heritage and the fact that our justice system continues to rely on them."

Does it? I think not.

Think about this:
In the modern West, we’ve inherited two of the great intellectual revolutions our species has managed, the creation of logic and formal mathematics in ancient Greece, and the creation of experimental science in early modern Europe. Both of those revolutions are all about reality testing. Logic is a system for making sure that mental models make sense on their own terms, and don’t stray into fallacy or contradiction; experimental science is a system for checking some mental models, those that deal with the quantifiable behaviour of matter and energy, against the facts on the ground.

It remains true, though, that all the many methods of reality testing we’ve evolved down through the millennia, from the most basic integration of sense inputs hardwired into the human brain right on up to the subtleties of propositional logic and the experimental method, share one central flaw. None of them will work if the message is ignored.

I think this is where your problem lies, you still hold onto a belief system that most locial people ignore.

You just don't like the idea that people ignore you.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Friday, 12 July 2013 2:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's too much nonsense in this article to permit response to all of it, but it's pretty funny that God makes a covenant with Noah about protecting human life when he's just drowned most of it.
Posted by Asclepius, Friday, 12 July 2013 3:10:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What are we to conclude from all of this, asks Peter?

That it's a load of old cobblers of course! What else can we make of fanciful religious claims that have not a shred of evidence to support anyone one of them.

That Peter keeps pushing his childish beliefs upon the long suffering crowd at OLO is bad enough but then we have the Singer constantly harping at us and telling ever more lies as well.

Then Graham is diligently pushing the Liberal wheelbarrow even though Abbott is about as popular as a rattlesnake at an Eskimo wedding and feminists are always attacking us men and trying to neuter us and intellectuals often present articles which try, without success, to show how clever they are.

Then we have the American apologists and the Six Day A Week Bikeriders...

Struth, it's enough to turn a man to drink.

Pass me the bottle, quick!
Posted by David G, Friday, 12 July 2013 3:45:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G, be careful or Peter may put the mockers on you.

Then you may end up like someone described here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15209

Then again it is Friday, have a couple for me to!
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Friday, 12 July 2013 5:06:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Stiller <For in the passion narrative we find played out in a drama the collision between the truth and the lie. Contrary to Pilate we are bid to see the truth embodied in the actions of a man. Surely this is a fine foundation for our understanding of the things unseen, of what is true and just.It is this realization that makes it possible to believe that Christ not only stands for the truth but also is the truth.>

I don’t see the execution of Jesus in this way at all, Peter. Like priests, Imans, The Amish, the Pope, who like Jesus, set themselves up as holy men, even today they soon end up with thousands and even millions of followers.
The Jews were a conquered people under the Romans who were harsh and brutal and did not treat the Jews as equals but as slaves and servants. Of course, Jesus in the hopes of getting better treatment for his people taught that all men were equal and everyone should love each other. This was a direct challenge to the Roman authority over the Jews which is what it was intended to be. Jesus was in effect saying to the Romans we are equal to you and you should treat us better.

The Romans understood perfectly, that Jesus was developing a huge following amongst the Jews much like the popular Iman in a Muslim society can raise an army of men in the streets. The fact that Jesus had such sway over the Jewish people meant he was a charismatic leader, like for example,(Osama Bin Laden) who could inspire revolution if not dealt with.
The Romans could not risk an uprising by just grabbing him and executing him, so they cleverly used the jealousy of the other Jewish Priests to condemn him.
Don’t forget Jesus had turned over the money tables of the Jewish Priests. Money is a powerful motive to get rid of someone. Plus he was costing them money by stealing their followers The rest is history.
Posted by CHERFUL, Friday, 12 July 2013 5:34:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In summary of my above post re: the execution of Jesus

Jesus was executed because he was a serious threat to the
Romans, because he was a charismatic leader, remember the
thousands that attended his sermon on the mount. Leaders
like that can cause men to rise up in revolution.

He was also a threat to the power and money raising activities
of the local Jewish priests. It was they who chose him to die instead of the thief, remember Pilate gave them the choice.

It was no act of God that caused Jesus to be executed but the
self interests of men.
Posted by CHERFUL, Friday, 12 July 2013 6:08:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And once again we see the contemporary Christian's most common failing: the deliberate confusion of 'we' and 'I'. I can think about truth and justice perfectly well; if YOU can't, Peter, that's YOUR problem. You may 'limp along in liberalism'; I don't. You may be 'eternally directed towards the self': I am not. Why do you feel this desperate urge to generalise your own failings and inadequacies by projecting them on to everyone else? Is it to do with your extensive training in the most effective ways to inculcate guilt and self-loathing in others?

There are some excellent elementary grammar books available which explain the correct use of pronouns: I suggest you consult one.
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 12 July 2013 10:01:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,
>> Atheists … insist that God can only be conceived as a supernatural being …. Framed in this way it is obvious that God is conceived as a part of nature <<

A “supernatural being” conceived as “a part of nature”?

>> truth that pertains to human existence and thriving<<

This is language incomprehensible outside the religious, even Christian, context. There are good reasons why for instance theoretical physicists and philosophers of science do not like to speak about truth, except in formal (logic, mathematics) or everyday situations, where its meaning is obvious.

I think you have got many good (and some not-so-good) points in your article. However, judging from the reactions you could have anticipated, don’t you think this is not the way to present your views to a mostly atheist, even anti-Christian, readership here, if you want to be understood?
Posted by George, Friday, 12 July 2013 11:23:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That was a sly little dig, George, and quite unnecessary.

>>...a mostly atheist, even anti-Christian, readership here...<<

I don't see any significant level of anti-Christian sentiment here, except in the strictest sense that Mr Sellick professes to be a Christian, and many people here object to his increasingly desperate generalizations, non-sequiturs, self-contradictions and simple misrepresentations.

Of which this article is chock-full. You picked the first blunder yourself, pointing out that he treats "supernatural" and "natural" as synonyms. But there are many more, as you are smart enough to recognize, which must disappoint you enormously.

But there's no need to take a swing at us atheists to vent your frustration. Mr Sellick is your problem, not us.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 13 July 2013 12:03:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,

Well, I am not going to argue with you whether the majority of contributors who discuss matters pertaining to religion on this OLO are theists or atheists, more Christians than anti-Christian or the other way around.

Also, I try to take your contributions on their face value - agreeing, disagreeing or no-commenting - without assigning them a need “to vent your frustration” over whatever. Neither would I claim to know what “must disappoint you enormously”.

I think this difference between our styles carries more weight in these discussions than who is a theist and who an atheist.
Posted by George, Saturday, 13 July 2013 7:30:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There should be no discussion at all. Religion is a figment of human imagination and wishful thinking, a Santa Klaus proposition which has found favor with the brain-dead and crowds of opportunistic fraudsters.

How can you discuss what doesn't exist? How can you base your life upon ancient scrolls written in a time when most people believed in superstition and ghosts and devils and witches, etc.

How can sane, so-called intelligent humans debate religious issues that are entirely without evidence, none!

How can frauds like Sells be allowed to lie and deceive without punishment? How can religious institutions brainwash innocent kids, fill their minds with theological nonsense and fears, present them with promises that can never be realized?

Humanity is caught in a pre-historic time warp and religious people and institutions capitalize on it. They bleed the flock and trick them as they have always done.

Folks, it's time to rid our minds of all religion. Perhaps then we can rise above believing in divisive fairy tales and become realists who work towards making our mortal lives as pleasant and happy as possible.

God is dead. A new age beckons!
Posted by David G, Saturday, 13 July 2013 10:28:07 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Human rights and equality before the law, have a foundation in the Christian ethos. And that is in spite of the inquisition and the barbarous acts of the past, that saw visionaries burnt at the stake and worse; or six million Muslims put to the sword, simply because they couldn't or wouldn't recant their beliefs or medieval superstitions?
Not that they were, by any means, alone in that dept.
That said, one doesn't have to be a Christian or one of the book people, to believe in the Good Samaritan analogy, or doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Or the advice; inasmuch you do to the least amongst you, you also do unto me.
While one can and does find some aspects of religious belief risible! The fundamentals, as expressed here, are not included.
I mean, even atheists can also be humanitarians, and espouse/advocate the above set of principles, as part of their own core beliefs or inherent morality/human decency?
And that may be as a principle result of the very earliest influences in their lives?
Much of which could have its foundation in religion and or its practitioners; even one or two times or generatons removed?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 13 July 2013 1:50:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I mean, even atheists can also be humanitarians..." opines Rhrosty pontifically. What a smug backhander!

Funny that, as usual, Sells is remaining silent. He throws a grenade full of ridiculous religious gobbledegook in our midst and, like Singer, waits for us to explode.

Of course, he thinks he is bearing witness and that one day he will reap a Jumbo-sized heavenly reward for it. He is in for a bitter disappointment!

Once upon a time, I bore witness too. I bored many people.

Then, using my intelligence, I saw the light of reality and gave religion away but I still cared about people and truth and I didn't need some fictitious heavenly reward to make me do it.

Feel sorry for Peter. He knows not what he does.
Posted by David G, Saturday, 13 July 2013 3:20:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Whoever sheds the blood of a human, by a human shall that person's blood be shed; for in his own image God created humankind."
Could there possibly be a more divisive, discriminatory and destructive doctrine to base a religion on?
“Humans” are created in God's own image:
God is clearly and self-evidently a man (according to the male priests), therefore only men are human.
God is white.
God is perfect -no physical imperfections.
All these arguments have been used -and are still being used in many parts- literally since the year dot as the justification for discrimination, slavery and genocide.
This is a basis for justice?
“ Human rights, on the other hand, seem to have no foundation except utopian fantasy.”
Nonsense. Human rights are simply based on the proposal that we are all equal, regardless of sex, race, creed or colour. We may not have been “created equal” in any real sense; there are always greater and lesser by any comparison you choose, but we are born equal in at least one measure and that's in that
we were in fact born.
And no-one has any control over that whatsoever.
We don't get to choose our parents, our genes, our country of birth, our upbringing... none of the things that make us what we are.
And who can judge our “worth”? Both Einstein and Gandhi could have had mass murderers and rapists somewhere in their ancestry (statistically likely they did) without whom they could never have been born.
Today the most widespread and innate discrimination is that of intelligence. The most “worthy” individuals are the most intelligent, the greatest achievers. We can't begrudge them material wealth, because they've “earned” it.
When Jesus was asked what the most important Laws were, His first response was religious (naturally enough). His second was “Love your neighbour as you love yourself”.
No God required.
Posted by Grim, Sunday, 14 July 2013 7:57:53 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the central concept in Peter Sellick's article is that revealed religious concepts of right and wrong are superior to any such concepts invented by human beings. I disagree with that, on the logical basis that there are no Gods, Sons of God's, Mother of God's, Brother in Laws of God's, or anything else. All "revealed" concepts of what is right or wrong were invented by human beings, and they are subject to change as different times create situations where old concepts of right and wrong become obsolete or just plain silly.

If Revealed moral concepts handed down by some God were absolute, we in the Christian world would still be executing homosexuals and witches.

Religious concepts of right and wrong do have a long history in many religious cultures and they may have made a lot of sense a couple of thousand years ago. The Hindu prohibition on eating beef was based upon the commonsense observation that if a person had a cow in bad times, they could still survive by eating or drinking the cow's dairy products. But kill the cow and after the meat was gone, you and your family starved to death.

Human beings, not God's, have always defined their own concepts of what is right and wrong, and these concepts were sanctioned and given religious authority by the priesthood in every culture.

There are many problems with the flawed concept of Human Rights. One is that the people who are effected by them had no say in what they were. They were imposed upon us by a new Socialist brahmin caste who have the presumption to define what everyone on planet Earth must accept as proper behaviour. 'Human Rights" are simply the Socialist Humanitarian catechism defined as unchanging moral absolutes. That these absolutes contradict each other and can be as nonsensical as religious teachings is something that the advocates of both camps studiously ignore. But the fact remains that communities of human beings do agree among themselves as to what is right and wrong, they always have, and they always will
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 14 July 2013 8:19:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So the strife and cruelty caused by religious rivalries can now be forgotten according to the author but human rights cannot be possible conceived without religion or belief in a higher unseen power (supernatural or otherwise).

The author talks about people being made in the image of God, but does not entertain the possibility 'what if God is man-made'. Faith based beliefs that cannot be seen or proven are are in the realm of supernatural whether the author likes the terminology or not. One definition of supernatural found on a quick search is: "Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

I cannot see any convincing argument that would deny that belief in a deity does not fit that description.

Atheists have not "hijacked" the debate as the author asserts. What is happening is that a once dominant and influential group is now having to share the space with other different and conflicting views. This new space is one that is equal even if it is not without criticisms of each other, but it is hardly a hijacking.

And to draw those conclusions does not make one 'anti-Christian'.

If we accept that religion and God are manifestations of man then how can human rights be beyond our reach or understanding? Indeed if religious people believe human beings are made in the image of their God, surely this would assume an understanding of human rights and ethics.
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 14 July 2013 3:09:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First I commend George's response:

Peter, you have beautiful ideas which I thoroughly enjoy reading. However, I'm not the only reader here, this is not a church magazine and you must adjust your writing and the symbols you use to the crowd you write to. Perhaps some proof-reading is in order before you publish your articles: myself and George could probably help you with that. It's a pity to lose your profound ideas in an swamp of irrelevant anti-clericalism - most readers here just see you as 'yet another from the other camp' and have no clue of what you really write about!

<<A “supernatural being” conceived as “a part of nature”?>>

Indeed, one cannot throw the whole blame on atheists for conceiving of God as part of nature (thus requiring evidence): have theists all along abstained from contributing towards such views? from the objectification of God?

Dear David G.,

<<How can you base your life upon ancient scrolls written in a time when... How can sane, so-called intelligent humans debate religious issues that are entirely without evidence, none!>>

And how can you base your life upon sensory and mental inputs, which in the first place were never designed for finding the truth? Our human senses and mind evolved and specialised at the services of genes 'wishing' to survive, succeed and replicate themselves indefinitely. Finding food and sexual partners and avoiding dangers and enemies are of evolutionary value - finding the truth never was!

Even if science turns every possible stone, no values will or can be found in nature, instructing us how we ought to live and what we should base our life on - because there are none! Therefore, basing one's life on gene-servitude, doing everything one can to help them replicate, following the DNA scroll, is no less irrational, no more intelligent, than basing one's life on some other ancient scroll.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 15 July 2013 6:39:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu <Therefore, basing one's life on gene-servitude, doing everything one can to help them replicate, following the DNA scroll, is no less irrational, no more intelligent, than basing one's life on some other ancient scroll.>

And yet, that is exactly what humans do, look for a mate or sexual partner. Reproduce, guard their children and provide for them for as long as they can.
Earn money to buy territory, a house and land to nest in and provide sanctuary for their Babies and children. Obey their survival instincts to support the tribe or community around them in times of war or disaster because we can’t survive without a supporting
Community or tribe around us. We are programmed by nature(biology,DNA) to do these things
and whilst we do have choice the above things that I mentioned consume much of a human beings time on this earth. WE dance to the tune of nature like any other species on the planet. We have will, yes, but our intelligence and will is
a tool that we basically mostly use to obtain(our desires)the things I listed above. The things our biology is programmed to want.

Therefore biology is constantly telling us what it is we desire and is driving us. We do have some will in blocking those desires, but judging by the way sex dominates societies everywhere, the non-stop producing of babies and territorial wars that have waged non-stop across history, a big percentage of the time it is our intellect that serves our biology in getting what we desire in life.
You overestimate your free will in the face of biological programming like most humans.
Posted by CHERFUL, Monday, 15 July 2013 8:54:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cherful,

Your observations are excellent!

Our free will can only do that much - at a time.

A heavy ship cannot reverse its direction in a second; one cannot become an Olympic champion in a day; or a professor; or an international virtuoso concert soloist; or a prima-ballerina. It requires repetitive efforts and training, ongoing dedication, day in and day out, it doesn't come easy to break lifetime habits.

The first step is to recognise that one is acting as a slave to an inanimate object, i.e. one's genes. Next, you ask yourself whether and why this is necessary. Next you contemplate yourself, satisfying yourself who and what you are so it is crystal-clear that you are NOT your body and genes. Next you consciously choose to quit and be free from your genes, next is a long and difficult journey to follow up your choice.

You can expect the genes to fight back every inch of the way. They will do so especially through your family (who have much of the same genes in common). Remember that they too deserve to be free, that if you fail to serve and love your family's genes it doesn't mean that you do not love THEM.

One of best resources to help you in this journey is good company - the company of others who also seek freedom from biological slavery, who can encourage and support each other in times of crisis. Originally this was the role of churches, but most are no longer into it nowadays, siding instead with society's greedy desire to expand. Monasteries are also an option, but are hard to come by today, or too steep a leap for most of us. A gentle but steady approach is usually better.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 16 July 2013 1:00:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,
finally some people have accepted the reality that god is a man-made myth and now you come along and float the concept that humans are at war with their genes which must be overcome to find, well, I'm not exactly sure what one would find but denying one's genetic inheritance seems a rather strange form of human behavior even stranger than most human behaviour.

I went out and walked amongst my cows and I floated the idea to them that they abandon their genes. They looked at me blankly and went on feeding their calves (no calf-minding centres for them) and chewing their cuds. A couple of them looked at me as if I was mad!

I wondered how long it would take the average crocodile or shark to repent of their genetically-created instincts and become warm and cuddly meditators. Parks could be filled with people walking their crocs!

Yuyutsu, humans don't need more fantasies. We already have too many!
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 16 July 2013 11:25:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

That humankind spends most of its time slaving away for their genes is not a fantasy, but an obvious fact, as clearly noted by CHERFUL.

Yehudah Halevy wrote in his poem, http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/time-servers :

<<
Time-servers are the cowering slaves of slaves,
Alone on earth, who serves the Lord is free.
>>

I agree with you that "denying one's genetic inheritance seems a rather strange form of human behavior even stranger than most human behaviour." - but I was not discussing human behaviour. We have plenty of evidence and know very well how humans tend to behave, and so about crocodiles, sharks and cows, but I was discussing OUR behaviour, YOUR behaviour and MINE, not that of the human/cow/crocodile that we temporarily assume ourselves to be.

Slavishly serving one's genes is indeed a common human behaviour - but it's not a rational one!

In Exodus 21:2-6, the bible describes the situation of a slave who is not willing to be freed:

[
If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing...

And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for ever.
]

I do not recommend slavery to anyone and anything, including to the state, including to clergy and religious institutions, and including to our body and its tyrannical genes. Slavery to God is the only form of freedom because God is not a separate entity, because we ARE God, thus it is the only way to be free and serve ourselves.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 16 July 2013 5:24:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, you claim that: 'We Are God.' Wow! What a sweeping claim! That must shake Sells, who does not deign to join in this debate, to his very foundations!

We are merely jumped up apes who have enormous egos and a perverse, rather sordid, pointless intelligence. We are still just a small step removed from our ancestor who lived in trees.

Gods we are not. Clods we are. Of course, you and I hope for better things from humans, you know, things like altruism, nobility, wisdom, caring, etc, but the truth is that you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear, can you?

Cheers.
Posted by David G, Wednesday, 17 July 2013 9:22:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yututsu-

Without modern medicine, antibiotics,penicillin,vaccines etc.
you and I are so unimportant in the scheme of things on this planet
we'd probably be dead by now. Before penicillin, a mere scratch
on our arm could become infected give us blood poisoning and kill
us with no way to stop it. Go to the old cemeterys and look
at the headstones of generations just over 100years ago.

A huge percentage of people didn't make it to 30years old, a lot
dying in childhood it didn't matter how smart or beautiful or rich you were, you weren't special, you died young right along with the rest.

As far as life on this planet goes, you and I are certainly not
Gods in status we are very expendable. Just put yourself in the domain of some of the major predators, without all your fancy weapons and see how long you would last. They'd understand your vulnerability in a heartbeat with their superior senses and you and I wouldn't last very long.

A little insect like the mosquito kills mankind in the millions with
malaria and other mosquito borne diseases and snakes are the second
top killer of man. No we are not Gods nor protected by Gods.
Posted by CHERFUL, Wednesday, 17 July 2013 8:14:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why do people persist with arguing with the author of this article? Argument is about logic and reason – it has certain rules. If these rules are not applied then it goes nowhere and is just talking for its own sake.

His arguments are all based on a fundamental premise that cannot be proven. He himself accepts this. It is based on faith which by definition is a belief that cannot be proven. If his premise cannot be proven then what a complete and utter waste of time it could turn out to be to argue against him as if it could be proven. Wait until his fundamental premise can be proven then argue against the arguments he derives from that premise. Send him back to get proof and then listen to him.

People who continue to argue against him have little integrity. It is unbecoming of human beings to use their rational faculties in such a way. They are not arguing with a rational purpose such as the desire to create a better society. If they truly wanted a better society then they would spend their time on arguing against people who have arguments based on proof.

This guy gets oxygen on OLO only because others lack the integrity to ignore him. He gets published because he gets lots of responses to his articles. That is not a sign that he has anything interesting to say. It is just a sign that people who respond to him are seeking to meet some other need than the creation of a better society.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 18 July 2013 10:59:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phanto

You are right in saying religion is not based on rationality

It's like trying to convince a smoker who doesn't want to quit to
stop smoking. The bottom line is they choose to smoke or believe
in religion because it somehow gets them through the day or the week.

But Religious delusion is a huge threat to the world right now because
it divides countries into warring groups and it must be challenged or
else kept out of Australia and Western countries as much as possible or at least only one religion should be mainly allowed in one country at a time to avoid civil war at some point in the future.

Fundamentalist religions don't marry outside of their religious
groups and so they become huge blood related tribes over time following different laws and dictates to the rest of society.

The world population is ridiculous and threatens the extinction of
many animals including the tiger and the elephant. Religious
laws that won't allow contraception are behind a lot of this.
I see a million people some of them crying in the streets as the
Pope goes by. And I think these people are crazy. They don't
know this man from a bar of soap yet they stand in the street crying
over him.

Religions practice their own form of Apartheid and sooner or later
that practice will lead to conflict. If as you say you want
peaceful communities then religion is the biggest threat around the
world to peaceful communities and is in fact tearing a lot of communities and countries apart as we post online.
Posted by CHERFUL, Thursday, 18 July 2013 8:47:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

It would be nice indeed if Peter joins this discussion. As a religious person and Christian who consistently opposes dumb/literal interpretations of the bible, I think he will also recognise the heresy and absurdity in claiming an existence independent of God. He would likely enrich the debate by using Christian symbols/flavour, yet essentially saying the same.

It matters not whether one declares themselves a bright all-powerful super-star or a miserable clod: either way is an egoistic assumption of separation from God, hence sin. Whether in outright pride or in false humility, theists and atheists alike commit this mistake.

Dear Cherful,

Within the scheme of nature, humans are what humans are: vulnerable and limited indeed. Let humans survive or fail-to-survive, live a short or a long life, all in accordance with their nature - but what's that to you? Anyway, that's getting away from the topic at hand - I am talking about us, you and me, not about the humans we currently assume to be.

What keeps us under the illusion as if 'I am human', more accurately 'I am this particular man/woman', is our bad and irrational habit of enslavement to the genes of that particular body. Consequently, so long as we identify with that body we also consider ourselves to be vulnerable and limited. So long as we do, we'll also suffer when this body is in pain and experience constant horror at that body's unavoidable demise.

Humans are unimportant in the scheme of things anyway (with or without medications etc.) and would be dead sooner or later anyway.

<<As far as life on this planet goes, you and I are certainly not Gods in status we are very expendable.>>

Indeed. from the perspective of life on this planet, we are expendable. Life could go on without us in its ever mechanical way, following the laws of nature. OTOH, as far as WE go, you and I, life on this planet is expendable.

Just as religion is not based on rationality, so is the identification with humans and serving their genes.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 19 July 2013 3:44:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cherful
It is true that religion is a real threat to society and we should do everything in our power to curtail any of its activities which contribute to that threat. Engaging in argument with religious people is a futile waste of time but opposing their activities which threaten the well-being of society is definitely not a waste of time.

Whenever any group tries to change society in their favour they should have to present good arguments as to why that should happen. Without good arguments the changes they seek should be rejected. This is the way a civilised society works. A society which changes its laws or institutions without subjecting the proponents for change to rigorous scrutiny as to their arguments is only asking for trouble. Religious people will never have good arguments because all their arguments begin with a fundamental premise that cannot be proven.

If religious people are exempt from showing the proof of their fundamental premise then so should everyone else – and we should simply give everyone whatever they want. Society would be given over to whoever exhibited the most force. Politicians and all other decision makers should never make changes to society unless reasonable and logical arguments can be made for those changes. If we want to stop the incursion of religion into society or dismantle the hold it already has then we need to force decision makers to adhere to the principles of requiring valid arguments. If they do not then we use our democratic power to remove them from decision making roles.

Challenge politicians as to why they give tax exemptions to religious groups. Challenge them as to why religious rallies should be allowed to impinge on the rights of society to freely move about their city. Challenge them as to why church schools are given government funds. Even challenge them as to why they waste taxpayer’s funds reciting the lord’s prayer before parliament. Form a political party with the express purpose of reigning in the power of religion when it impinges on anything that curtails the freedoms of non-religious citizens.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 19 July 2013 12:19:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Whenever any group tries to change society in their favour they should have to present good arguments as to why that should happen. Without good arguments the changes they seek should be rejected. <<

Well, this is what all conservatives - including the Catholic Church for the past centuries - have been saying, without explaining who decides what arguments are “good”. I suspect this quote is also what opponents of gay marriage would claim.

>>If religious people are exempt from showing the proof of their fundamental premise then so should everyone else<<

Well, I do not know about “everyone else”, but you certainly would not have much mathematics (and probably not much science and technology) if you asked mathematicians to “show the proof of their fundamental premises” (know also as axioms).

You can prove something only if you can build your proof on some self-evident (for those expected to accept your proof) “fundamental” concepts that cannot be defined, because any definition is built on some other definitions, or concepts that are self-evident; and on some “fundamental premises” that cannot be proved for similar reasons.

So “fundamental” in whatever context means just that: fundamental, i.e. what cannot be derived, even less “proved” from other things.
Posted by George, Friday, 19 July 2013 7:39:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"This guy gets oxygen on OLO only because others lack the integrity to ignore him," says Phanto. I agree.

That he writes an article but doesn't bother to join in the conversation about it suggests that he, Sells, is rather arrogant.

He obviously thinks that he doesn't have to justify his claims, that what he says is beyond criticism or questioning.

I guess the point is that he can't justify his claims. He has no proof. None. He is used to dealing with gullible people who don't question but, like children and Santa, just believe.

We should ignore him, Phanto, him and Singer!

They are both frauds.
Posted by David G, Saturday, 20 July 2013 10:55:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy