So about Obama being a Muslim...

[TobiasFunke]

Which one?

 

 

[juansavage1]

Take a break guys. We need to figure out a way to get a couple wins in Houston. Not feeling too optimistic.

I took a break from the Angels after last week's Sunday loss. Was at the win the previous Friday,. 

 

I'll get back into the Angels for a while. I hope some of the things I said were interesting and provoked some questions for you. 

[TobiasFunke]

They weren't/didn't

[Angelsjunky]

I know that you think my religion is made up. I'm just telling you that if it's true, then I'm following the truth. Let's see if we can agree on this. 

 

Let's say a person follows a religion because he thinks it's true. It may or may not be true, but the person is sincere and making a rational choice. 

 

Another follows a religion he knows can't be true because he likes. it- it gives him comfort.  You're like the second guy. 

 

Whatever moral code you follow can't possibly be "the truth"- only what you want through disposition and nurture. If you can admit that, then we would have made progress. 

 

This is absurd. How am I not sincere in what I believe to be truth? Juan, EVERYONE believes what they think is truth, or at least want to think is truth. It doesn't matter if they are religious or not.

 

So again, you make arguments based upon false assumptions and then don't understand why people get frustrated with you.

[Tank]

Tank, I'm a chubby, balding, Mexican dude. Look for me next time at the AW lawn bowling get together.

Oh great, so you look like Adam, Mancini, Stradling, Cory, and stickboy.

[TobiasFunke]

Oh great, so you look like Adam, Mancini, Stradling, Cory, and stickboy.

Did I mention I have a Gary Matthews Jr. tattoo on my upper back? That also.

[nate]

Don't forget the Bernie Sanders tramp stamp.

[juansavage1]

This is absurd. How am I not sincere in what I believe to be truth? Juan, EVERYONE believes what they think is truth, or at least want to think is truth. It doesn't matter if they are religious or not.

 

So again, you make arguments based upon false assumptions and then don't understand why people get frustrated with you.

Angelsjunky. Let's clarify some things. You previously said that what people believed didn't matter as long as they followed it. Did you mean that it didn't matter what people believed as long as they follow what you'd call a natural, common set of standards? 

 

I'm only pointing out that your standard, if it's not based on a transcendent source and is unchangeable, only exists as the norms you accept because you're a 21st century American secular-minded person. If you were an adult in the 60s, you'd have a different set. If you lived in Afghanistan, you'd have a different set of values. 

[nate]

Matthew 7:1-6

 

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 â€œWhy do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

6 â€œDo not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

[InsideThePark]

Juan is one of those types who needs religion. As he's said before, life wouldn't really matter to him without it. As long as it doesn't affect the rest of us, we shouldn't care. I'm just glad that there are less people who share his opinion of wanting to legislate Bible beliefs into law. People like him are going to go even more nuts as we continue to get further away from that.

[Tank]

Did I mention I have a Gary Matthews Jr. tattoo on my upper back? That also.

Okay, so that eliminates Mancini, but it also adds Nate, mr.wicked, and Vegas.

[ABC]

Who, in your opinion, has been a good president? And why, in your opinion, is Obama a "horrible" president? ("horrible" being a pretty strong word).

[Angelsjunky]

Angelsjunky. Let's clarify some things. You previously said that what people believed didn't matter as long as they followed it. Did you mean that it didn't matter what people believed as long as they follow what you'd call a natural, common set of standards? 

 

I'm only pointing out that your standard, if it's not based on a transcendent source and is unchangeable, only exists as the norms you accept because you're a 21st century American secular-minded person. If you were an adult in the 60s, you'd have a different set. If you lived in Afghanistan, you'd have a different set of values. 

 

Yes, let's clarify some things. I did not say that "what people believed didn't matter as long as they followed it." Or anything like it, really. You are either confusing me with your "leftist" strawman or someone else in this thread. This is part of your problem, Juan. You're not actually able to hear what people are saying and instead reduce it to your caricature of "leftist" and debate that. Again, that's called a strawman argument. Look it up.

 

And yes, there are different mindsets in different cultural and historical contexts. The Old Testament is derived from a historical-cultural mindset that is almost 3,000 years old now. I tend to believe that they all hold truth to some degree, but that some are more expansive and inclusive of others, and thus more appropriate to the 21st century global context. A worldview that was derived from desert nomads three thousand years ago, as well as monks 1500 years ago, doesn't seem particular adaptive to our current context. This doesn't mean that religion per se should be out, but that it needs to evolve - and in some cases it has. I can think of many Christian philosophers that take a broader view, along with Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, and yes, even some Muslims.

 

Anyhow, you claim that your standard is "based on a transcendent source and is unchangeable" and I just don't see it that way. That is your belief and one I don't share. Actually, I do think that most if not all religions are based upon some kind of mystical experience, but that they get interpreted by men, and that for every religion there are many ways to interpret and apply it. I don't have a problem with religion in principle, just fundamentalist religion - that is, literalist interpretation of scripture and its resulting application. Christianity and Islam seem particularly prone to fundamentalism, at least in terms of negative global impact.

 

The problem with fundamentalism is that it is an extremely simplistic outlook, and doesn't really allow for either critical thinking or a nuanced understanding of human psychology, and perhaps most importantly is that it is intolerant of other ways of being and seeing the world. A fundamentalist doesn't realize that phenomena can be interpreted in different ways, or that their way of seeing is--like all ways of seeing--subjective and thus inherently limited. The fundamentalist insists that their way is the One True Way...which is convenient, but rather simplistic and deeply problematic in terms of living in the world with others.

 

And yes, there are secular forms of fundamentalism - take political correctness, for instance, which is deeply problematic Political correctness wants to encourage and honor external (racial, ethnic, cultural) diversity by squashing intellectual or philosophical diversity. In a way you could say its liberal fundamentalism, "social justice fascism." I'm sure we'd probably find some agreement there, at least.

[Angelsjunky]

 

Who, in your opinion, has been a good president? And why, in your opinion, is Obama a "horrible" president? ("horrible" being a pretty strong word).

 

 

Yeah, I was hoping mtangelsfan would answer that.

[juansavage1]

Juan is one of those types who needs religion. As he's said before, life wouldn't really matter to him without it. As long as it doesn't affect the rest of us, we shouldn't care. I'm just glad that there are less people who share his opinion of wanting to legislate Bible beliefs into law. People like him are going to go even more nuts as we continue to get further away from that.

Are you assuming? Another non-answer and an insult. 

[juansavage1]

Yes, let's clarify some things. I did not say that "what people believed didn't matter as long as they followed it." Or anything like it, really. You are either confusing me with your "leftist" strawman or someone else in this thread. This is part of your problem, Juan. You're not actually able to hear what people are saying and instead reduce it to your caricature of "leftist" and debate that. Again, that's called a strawman argument. Look it up.

 

And yes, there are different mindsets in different cultural and historical contexts. The Old Testament is derived from a historical-cultural mindset that is almost 3,000 years old now. I tend to believe that they all hold truth to some degree, but that some are more expansive and inclusive of others, and thus more appropriate to the 21st century global context. A worldview that was derived from desert nomads three thousand years ago, as well as monks 1500 years ago, doesn't seem particular adaptive to our current context. This doesn't mean that religion per se should be out, but that it needs to evolve - and in some cases it has. I can think of many Christian philosophers that take a broader view, along with Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, and yes, even some Muslims.

 

Anyhow, you claim that your standard is "based on a transcendent source and is unchangeable" and I just don't see it that way. That is your belief and one I don't share. Actually, I do think that most if not all religions are based upon some kind of mystical experience, but that they get interpreted by men, and that for every religion there are many ways to interpret and apply it. I don't have a problem with religion in principle, just fundamentalist religion - that is, literalist interpretation of scripture and its resulting application. Christianity and Islam seem particularly prone to fundamentalism, at least in terms of negative global impact.

 

The problem with fundamentalism is that it is an extremely simplistic outlook, and doesn't really allow for either critical thinking or a nuanced understanding of human psychology, and perhaps most importantly is that it is intolerant of other ways of being and seeing the world. A fundamentalist doesn't realize that phenomena can be interpreted in different ways, or that their way of seeing is--like all ways of seeing--subjective and thus inherently limited. The fundamentalist insists that their way is the One True Way...which is convenient, but rather simplistic and deeply problematic in terms of living in the world with others.

 

And yes, there are secular forms of fundamentalism - take political correctness, for instance, which is deeply problematic Political correctness wants to encourage and honor external (racial, ethnic, cultural) diversity by squashing intellectual or philosophical diversity. In a way you could say its liberal fundamentalism, "social justice fascism." I'm sure we'd probably find some agreement there, at least.

You said this: 

 

Fundamentally, having boundaries because of religion or just self ascribed morals is not what matters.  It is the ability to live by them.

 I asked you to clarify. It doesn't matter to you because you might not be a person who cares about making sense. Don't you think that people who make up their morals will find some that happen to be exactly the same as what they feel like doing? 

 

My larger point is that if your morals are personal, you can't claim that they should be followed by others. Isn't that obvious? It was to most famous atheists.

 

I think the larger problem is that since we live in a country built by people who believed in an objective morality, it's easy for people to benefit from that as they try to tear it down. 

[nate]

I said that not AJ

[juansavage1]

Anyhow, you claim that your standard is "based on a transcendent source and is unchangeable" and I just don't see it that way. That is your belief and one I don't share. Actually, I do think that most if not all religions are based upon some kind of mystical experience, but that they get interpreted by men, and that for every religion there are many ways to interpret and apply it. I don't have a problem with religion in principle, just fundamentalist religion - that is, literalist interpretation of scripture and its resulting application. Christianity and Islam seem particularly prone to fundamentalism, at least in terms of negative global impact.

 

You're not understanding my point. Whether the religion is true or not, only a transcendent (larger than oneself) source can proclaim a morality that's binding on everybody. Otherwise, it's your opinion. 

 

I'm not arguing that my beliefs are true, but that only the assumption of a transcendent authority can result in a moral system above personal opinion. 

 

Basically, if you're an atheist, you can argue that following the rules will benefit them, but you can't argue that it's true intrinsically. 

Edited September 22, 2015 by Juan Savage

[juansavage1]

An analogy would be this: 

 

We're playing a game and we ourselves make up the rules. We can change the rules when we want and we can convince most people that they're the best rules. We can come up with a punishment system and enforce it as long as most people or the strongest person has power. That's the atheist system. You can't say that there's a right and wrong way to play the game, just a more fun and less fun way. 

 

Compare to:

 

We buy a game and open the rule book. We decide to follow the rules. When there's a dispute, we look at the rule book and see who's right. The rule book is above our opinion. We can say that we're playing correctly or incorrectly. 

 

It's not a perfect analogy because the rule maker would still be human. It might be closer to how we use the constitution. 

 

But, imagine if the rule-maker in the second scenario were a recognized authority, above the players.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Juan Savage

[Glen]

But just remember your rule book has been altered throughout the years and has always been subject to interpretation by those you claim it is above the opinion of.  Which makes it remarkably similar to the rules in the first game you mentioned.

[Angelsjunky]

You're not understanding my point. Whether the religion is true or not, only a transcendent (larger than oneself) source can proclaim a morality that's binding on everybody. Otherwise, it's your opinion. 

 

I'm not arguing that my beliefs are true, but that only the assumption of a transcendent authority can result in a moral system above personal opinion. 

 

Basically, if you're an atheist, you can argue that following the rules will benefit them, but you can't argue that it's true intrinsically. 

 

First of all, as I've told you I'm not an atheist. If you want to ascribe a theological "ism" to me I'm closer to a panentheist than a theist or atheist.

 

But thanks for clarifying. I can see your point and don't entirely disagree with your assertion that some kind of transcendent factor (although not necessarily "authority") is required for a morality that is above personal opinion. But I think this is possible without belief in the monotheist God. Buddhism is essentially non-theistic but has a moral system based upon compassion, which in turn is based upon the realization that we are interconnected. Or some philosophers talk about the Ground of Being, or in Hinduism there is the idea that the universe itself is God, and as we are part of the universe we are God too.

 

But here's the thing: why do you need "intrinsic truth?" Why is God and absolute morality necessary to be a good person? I'd say it isn't. As others have said, there's no direct correlation between theological belief and morality.

 

Belief in God was (and still is) necessary to bring men out of violent tribalism, whether we're talking about the Middle Eastern tribes of 3,000 years ago or gangs today. A lot of violent criminals find God in jail (whether Christian or Islamic) and become better people. For them it is a positive development. But I don't think that's the case for all, and that it is possible to develop a strong moral sense without religion. In some cases, even, religion becomes an obstacle to develop a deeper morality - one that is not bound by an external creed, but comes from within.

 

In other words, there's a difference between doing good things because God says you should, which is like a child obeying a parent, and doing good things because it is what you want to do - which is like an adult.

 

I'd also argue that no one, at least not at first, decides their morality. It comes from upbringing. Almost everyone in this country is, to varying degrees, influenced by Christianity in this regard. So that forms a kind of bedrock, and then we decide how we are going to live our lives - so we start to evolve and adapt our morality. But I think the basic moral sense comes from upbringing.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Angelsjunky

[Angelsjunky]

An analogy would be this: 

 

We're playing a game and we ourselves make up the rules. We can change the rules when we want and we can convince most people that they're the best rules. We can come up with a punishment system and enforce it as long as most people or the strongest person has power. That's the atheist system. You can't say that there's a right and wrong way to play the game, just a more fun and less fun way. 

 

Compare to:

 

We buy a game and open the rule book. We decide to follow the rules. When there's a dispute, we look at the rule book and see who's right. The rule book is above our opinion. We can say that we're playing correctly or incorrectly. 

 

It's not a perfect analogy because the rule maker would still be human. It might be closer to how we use the constitution. 

 

But, imagine if the rule-maker in the second scenario were a recognized authority, above the players.

 

See, I would say that organized religion is just a codified, groupthink version of the first game. We're all playing it - you're just claiming that you're not.

[juansavage1]

But just remember your rule book has been altered throughout the years and has always been subject to interpretation by those you claim it is above the opinion of.  Which makes it remarkably similar to the rules in the first game you mentioned.

The idea is that something has authority. You're saying that the rule book was not really written by an authority and that we're free to ignore it. That may be so, but if you say that we can change all rule books because there is no authority, then you can't say that there's an authority. It's just an obvious point that many people stumble upon. 

[juansavage1]

See, I would say that organized religion is just a codified, groupthink version of the first game. We're all playing it - you're just claiming that you're not.

Yes. You're doubting the authority. In that case, there's no authority. I'm saying there is an authority and it follows, therefore, that everybody should follow it and those who don't are playing wrong. 

 

The choices are: 

 

1. There's an authority. 

2. There's no authority. 

 

If you believe in 1, the next step is finding which one it is. If you think 2, then your task is to figure out the best rules for you and convince others that those are the best ones. 

[Angelsjunky]

Here's a thought for you, Juan. If there is a God, maybe he/she/it wants us to figure out our own rules. This seems borne out by history, which could be see as an ongoing trial-and-error sequence, which will continue indefinitely.

 

As I've sometimes said, human nature is discovering and creating what human nature is.