Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?
Comments
-
Still sidestepping and dodging I see.Why? You don't know what's in his head, I want what's in his head. I haven't expressed an interest in what's in your head yet.
So antiskeptic, ready to share your 'concerns regarding sexual fluidity'?
Not one of the people saying "there are no concerns regarding sexual fluidity" has responded to the topical and locally relevant link I posted illustrating some serious concerns regarding the current vogue for sexual fluidity.
Yet you continue to demand examples of same - but not from me, because I supplied one.
As I said, its a very lame response.0 -
Bannasidhe wrote:
You really really really should read the whole book.
And nope. You've got bubkiss.
You may desperately wish to have something. But that doesn't mean you actually have anything.
You may need for that book you haven't read all of to contain the words of the God you need to be your forever eternal omnipresent patriarch and contain the font of all knowledge and be an objective standard for whatever you need but the reality is that it nothing more or less than what various people over a few thousand years want you to think the god you need says you must do. Plus some Jewish origin myths.
And it contradicts itself.
Which you would know. If you had read it all.
I don't need to have read every last piece of mechanical engineering literature in order to have a solid overview of that subject.
When it comes to 'conflict'
a) in my experience the problems frequently have simple resolutions (God instructing rape and murder in Numbers being a critics goto).
b. A conflict on a point doesn't detract from the the whole, any more than a leaky roof causes a house to fall down
If you suppose that God's Word ought to mean 'perfect and without error/ means the first thing that a reader thinks it means' then yes, it's problematic. But that starting point is somewhat limited.
If you think I've got bubkiss then not only have you a problem with scoring yourself a 7. You also have probkems with logic statements. If the IF is true then much follows. And if false, I'm in the same boat as you.
I know you don't give a fig about Dawkins, but your assessment method is as his: mechanistic and lacking any depth. You approach the Bible like you would an IKEA assembly instruction leaflet. And since it isn't such a thing (and needn't be, in order to function well) you can't help but assemble a ridiculously wonky looking structure. And you understandibly laugh at such a structure.
But its a structure created by your approach and expectations.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »For there to be an objective standard there has to be something immovable and fixed to measure against - the carefully controlled metre stick in Paris for example.
Without fixed and immovable you've got subjective (majority view of the time, the Unitied Nations (which is just a different expression of the majority view of the time)).
Whilst God (if he exists) would provide the fixed reference, not everyone believes. And whilst a believer might concievably and accurately represent His view, non believers and believers with alternative (inaccurate in this event) theologies won't accept the objective as objective.
The athiest isn't even at the races in this regard. All he can ever have is the subjective.
The believer has the potential to have an objective view.
Nonsense.
What you're obliquely referring to there is terms of absolute objectivety is observer effect. This only relates to the physical world, whereas even children can and do deal with perfect abstracts all the time without needing a God. e.g. in a right angle triangle, the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square on the other two sides.
Humans rights standards, arrived at through consensus and revised on an ongoing basis are similarly abstract and rather more objective than anything you're likely to find in the bible. We also understand that they're aspirational ideals and not a pretense of absolute truth. So for example Christians often say "though shalt not kill". Except of course when it suits them, like when our infallible friend Pope Innocent III took the hump with the Cathars and had them slaughtered en-masse on a point of minor theological difference in what become Europe's first genocide.
Some of the fundamental human rights we collectively aspire to are as follows;- The right to live your life free of discrimination
- The right to control what happens to your own body and to make medical decisions for yourself
- The right to freely exercise your religion and practice your religious beliefs without fear of being prosecuted for your beliefs
- The right to be free from prejudice on the basis of race, gender, national origin, color, age or sex
I'm afraid your holier than though arguments once again are more holey than holy.
Much ado.
You haven't said a single thing to move fundamental beyond subjective. Collective subjective.
I'd agree with certain human rights and derive that view from whence I derive it. Others derive it as they derive it. Presumably where we share view we somehow share derivation method. Where we don't share we don't, our derivation method obviously differing.
Words like consensus and collective add not one jot of objectivity. There is no nearer to or further from .. the bible .. inherent in such terms. Other than supposing collective approaches objective.
Whether or not a christian practices what he preaches is besides the point. The point is for objective rights and wrongs (from whence human rights) you need an objective measure.
For that you need God.
And so, there is no need for me to adhere to the subjective collective. Since it is, and remains subjective.
Forces cause large scale subjective flows. We are sheep and can be moved en masse. I call the result the mood of the times (be it the persecution of homosexuals or the normalising of homosexuality). I don't see any reason to laud such movement any more than I need laud the aforethought and consideration of rocks involved in a landslide. I'm not impressed by majority rule, whether cultural Christianity or anything else.0 -
To carry on the engineering metaphor, averaging multiple samples to arrive at single measurement (and error) is a good way to improve the accuracy of your measurements.
So that's the one good thing about "the subjective collective".
But as antiskeptic points out, If your collective exists inside its own little bubble, it can still be wildly off the mark.
And in matters of ethics and rights, there is no international standard that is infallible and unchanging, as some here would like to believe.0 -
-
To carry on the engineering metaphor, averaging multiple samples to arrive at single measurement (and error) is a good way to improve the accuracy of your measurements.
So that's the one good thing about "the subjective collective".
But as antiskeptic points out, If your collective exists inside its own little bubble, it can still be wildly off the mark.
And in matters of ethics and rights, there is no international standard that is infallible and unchanging, as some here would like to believe.
Indeed. The unspoken erroneous assumption is that human rights and ethics are like an engineering measurement. The latter involves an objective quantity and the subjective collective helps reduce error obtain a measurement closer to the objective one.
The former isn't like that at all. The assumption appears to be this: "the onwards and upwards march of humanity will cause the subjective collective to approach (if never reach) a preexisting objective"
The usual response is to wheel out all the wonderful advances of science (forgetting that science has also brought us to the point of extinction on any number of fronts). A subjective argument thus undergirds the onwards and upwards party.. which in turn undergirds the idea that we are moving closer to some objective standard for human rights.
Forgotten too, is that agreed advancement doesn't mean every development in 'human rights' an actual advance.0 -
Pherekydes wrote: »
Precisely. Worldview roots produce output. One worldviews advancement is another worldviews regression.
A flaw in athiest thinking is that modern means good and old equal bad (whilst both have demonstrable problems). And whats modern now will soon be old.
And so, the reliance on the onwards and upwards presumption.0 -
Another thing which is worth bearing in mind is just how low-brow the New Testament is in the original Koine Greek - one teacher or mine described it as "Daily Mirror" level, and having ploughed many years back, through substantial bits of the four gospels in both Latin and Ancient Greek, one does not get the impression that they were written by very literate individuals, or by very wise ones either - though the gospel of John is a better and much less tedious outing than the earlier three texts by Matthew, Mark and Luke - all four authors, of course, being of unknown provenance, identity and relation to Jesus.Bannasidhe wrote: »Here we have people arguing that a book they read in English ( a language that didn't even exist in 325 CE)- or at least the parts they have bothered to read - is an objective standard for anything are talking through their codex.0 -
And you have made an entirely subjective decision to believe the bible, or at least, believe the bits of the bible which provides an interpretation you like.antiskeptic wrote: »You haven't said a single thing to move fundamental beyond subjective. Collective subjective.
I'm not sure how one could be any more subjective than that.0 -
The question isn't that I believe it. The question is whether its true or not. There is no truthfor the athiest. Not even the potential for it.0
-
Advertisement
-
Oh, so you don't believe the bible?antiskeptic wrote: »The question isn't that I believe it.
Truly, you have made great progress in your religious enquiries!0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Worldview roots produce output.
And here, the output you have produced is not simply just wrong, it's downright stupid. You're free to believe whatever crusty, old religious stories you happen to like, but where something can be figured out easily (say, by asking your fellow-posters), then perhaps you'd like to do this instead of telling us what we think?antiskeptic wrote: »A flaw in athiest thinking is that modern means good and old equal bad [...]
Zero-sum thinking at its finest - yet another thing you seem to believe which is so trivially false, it verges on the embarrassing to have to point it out.antiskeptic wrote: »One worldviews advancement is another worldviews regression.0 -
And in matters of ethics and rights, there is no international standard that is infallible and unchanging, as some here would like to believe.
Perhaps, but unless you can think of a time in the past where ethics and human rights had been superior, there's clearly been progress and that progress is ongoing.0 -
There has always been an ebb and flow. The San bushmen are as stone age a people as you ever likely to meet. They live in a much more egalitarian society than we do. Their chats about tribal business around the camp fire seem more civilised than the Brexit antics in the House of Commons. They are far less prone to bribery and corruption than the delegates at UN vote. And generally they are happy with their lot (even though its not much at all).Perhaps, but unless you can think of a time in the past where ethics and human rights had been superior, there's clearly been progress and that progress is ongoing.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »The question isn't that I believe it. The question is whether its true or not. There is no truthfor the athiest. Not even the potential for it.
You seem to be confusing belief with truth here. FWIW, there's nothing to stop an atheist believing all sorts of nonsense either, e.g. homeopathy, reiki, powers in crystals, without having any god involved. There are also religions that are broadly compatible with atheism, though still heavy on the woo in places, such as Taoism that allude to universal truths.0 -
smacl wrote:You seem to be confusing belief with truth here. FWIW, there's nothing to stop an atheist believing all sorts of nonsense either, e.g. homeopathy, reiki, powers in crystals, without having any god involved. There are also religions that are broadly compatible with atheism, though still heavy on the woo in places, such as Taoism that allude to universal truths.
I'm not sure what has to do with what I posted. There is no truth or potential for same in athiesm. Even when he dies, if he's right about the belief that there is nothing after this, he'll never know he's right.
There is in theism. All it takes is for God to exist. What I believe isn't relevant to that fact.
Indeed if its true then I am not confined to belief anymore. The only issue is whether God exists or not.0 -
antiskeptic wrote:
Quite.you happen to like, but where something can be figured out easily (say, by asking your fellow-posters)
You have a bit of a graw for the "fellow members" device. You seem to forget the fellow members aren't exactly a neutral viewpoint.
All creative-writing padding for the main event though. You've clearly been gagging on the bit to find application for some buzzword you picked up recently.Zero-sum thinking at its finest - yet another thing you seem to believe which is so trivially false, it verges on the embarrassing to have to point it out.
"Zero sum score". Sounds like one of those (thankfully defunct) internet discussion forum memes of the noughties. Remember when folk reamed off lists of logical fallacies others had supposedly committed? Or sprinkled "cognitive dissonance" all over the place?antiskeptic wrote:One worldviews advancement is another worldviews regression.
When the pro-abortion side celebrated as progress, the outcome of the recent referendum and the anti-abortion side saw the result as societal regression, they were both engaging in "zero sum scores"?
Let's hope this effort of yours doesn't find meme-purchase. You would do well to read your own link.0 -
antiskeptic wrote:
Speaking of internet discussion forum memes. There was also the one where people asked a poster "did you read what you wrote before posting?0 -
Perhaps, but unless you can think of a time in the past where ethics and human rights had been superior, there's clearly been progress and that progress is ongoing.
Hmm.
Ethics and human rights (to me) isn't something that's written down on a piece of paper. It's something that happens in practice.
1. Wealth is concentrated in greater quantity/in fewer people that it ever has been before. The sophisticated mechanisms permitting such wealth concentration are modern day occurrences. Before it took expensive wars to achieve and maintain wealth concentration. Lawyers, politicians and tax consultants are a damn sight cheaper army to run.
2. Imperialism isn't a new idea. But modern day imperialism, lead by our "friends" across the pond have brought global levels of misery to untold hundreds of thousands, either directly or by proxy. The military/industrial/political complex diverts huge swathes of US wealth into perma-war. Perma-war is great if your a line worker for McDonnell Douglas. Not so good if you're on the receiving end of their products. Necessity (keep the business going) is the mother of invention
3. Captalism's final days. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that finite resources and ever increasing growth will never make successful bedfellows. Yet onwards and upwards with that model. This ties in, of course to the point 2. above. The raping of the planet is big business. And big business will swat human rights like so many flies. Poor you, if your non-developed country happens to contain copper, zinc, oil, magnesium, beryllium, chromium. I mean, we need the latest iteration of the iphone like we need air.
You sound like a man who considers the sentiment in a Corporate Mission Statement as gospel? They should all read "to make as much money as we possibly can by any means we think we can get away with" Didn't work for Volkswagen but hey...
4. Climate Change Global Warming (Climate Change is a term which was pushed to displace the term Global Warming - it sounds more innocuous). Do you know that boards.ie doesn't have a dedicated Global Warming forum? I mean, even the dog in the mainstream media street (owned by those in whom wealth is concentrated) knows we're in big trouble. Human rights involves not having to abandon your country because the developed worlds desire to maintain comfort and joy in the momentary distraction provided for by a Happy Meal toy. Doubtlessly, those affected will express their human rights in no uncertain terms. They, like those whose human rights have been trampled all over by perma-war, will simply come here. And when they do, you just watch the West protect those unfortunates human rights. They can feckin' drown in the Med is what they can do.
It's ongoing alright. But I wouldn't call it progress.
And, of course, it's all going to come to an end. Whether dwindling resources or climate change, it will come to an end. And as the end approaches, when things start getting to the pointy end of trouble, then there is only one sure thing that will happen.
War.
Fighting for resources, fighting to maintain comfort, fighting to prevent those worst affected from fleeing to places less affected. The same as now (we in the West are resource addicts afterall, and there ain't nothing lacking in empathy quite like an addict) but cranked up by the need, not for a Happy Meal toy or an iphone or the latest model car (for that is why people's rights are being trampled over now) but for survival of the good life. And then for the fight for survival.
Then watch what happens human rights. The problem won't be thinking of a time in the past when ethics were superior. It will be trying to find a time (including the holocaust and any other horror mankind has managed to produce) when they were inferior.
Mankind: onwards and upwards. Discuss.0 -
Advertisement
-
There has always been an ebb and flow. The San bushmen are as stone age a people as you ever likely to meet. They live in a much more egalitarian society than we do. Their chats about tribal business around the camp fire seem more civilised than the Brexit antics in the House of Commons. They are far less prone to bribery and corruption than the delegates at UN vote. And generally they are happy with their lot (even though its not much at all).
Mentioned before but Dawkins in The God Delusion, cited research which showed peoples morality (from whence human rights) is pretty much the same all round the world, irrespective of religion, education, societal position, country. Whether primitive bushman (the research included them) or city dweller, it was pretty much the same.
He was using the research to argue that there was a common ancestor for human morality. Me and him just differed on who that common ancestor was.0 -
There has always been an ebb and flow. The San bushmen are as stone age a people as you ever likely to meet. They live in a much more egalitarian society than we do. Their chats about tribal business around the camp fire seem more civilised than the Brexit antics in the House of Commons. They are far less prone to bribery and corruption than the delegates at UN vote. And generally they are happy with their lot (even though its not much at all).
Seems like a great bunch alright. Never had to put up with any LGBT nonsense either because their was no need for it in the first place. Until the colonists brought their religion and changed the mood of the day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_BotswanaThe San people similarly did not regard homosexuality negatively, and various rock paintings depicting anal intercourse between men exist to this day.[4] The Tswana people, a Bantu ethnic group who make up the majority of Botswana's population, also have a local term to refer to homosexuality. The Tswana term matanyola, which literally translates to "anal sex", has long been used to refer to homosexuals. Prior to colonisation, Tswana society did not share the Western concepts of sexuality and gender. Many Tswana men would have sex with men, but also have wives. Homosexuality was not viewed as an antithesis to heterosexuality. Indeed, there was widespread liberty to move between the two, and engage in sexual activity with both men and women.[5] Traditional dikgosi (local Tswana chiefs) argue that homosexuality has always existed in Tswana society, and that such individuals should be respected.[6]
This relative openness and indifference towards homosexuality disappeared after Botswana (then known as the Bechuanaland Protectorate) became a British protectorate in the 19th century and began enforcing Victorian era laws and social policies.0 -
Christianity is syncretic, it 'borrows' ideas from all sorts of other religions and cultural practices in order to remain contextually relevant. Or as the OP might put it, it demonstrably follows the mood of the day.
That presupposes that other religions and cultural practices have no relationship with the divine.
If they do have some relationship with the divine, then it wouldn't be unsurprising that what they have to say has a relevance that is worth repeating and incorporating.
The issue isn't the borrowing. The issue is why the borrowing. Just because someone says "to make it contextually relevant" doesn't make it true.
-
I read an interesting book by a fellow named Greg Boyd recently. He was dealing with the apparent conflict between the Old Testament God (perceived as warlike - unto instructing rape and slaughter) and the New Testament God, Jesus (perceived as gentle and compassionate)
They are the same God, says the Bible. So what gives? How do you reconcile the two.
The God of the New Testament is long suffering: he accommodates sinners, hopes and wants them to come to him, provides openings for sinners to come back to him and when they do come back and sin, provides yet more openings to come back.
He posits that this same God is the God of the Old Testament. And there are clear instances where that character shows up."Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing".
The Israelites (before God chose them) were a pagan people worshipping and appeasing idol gods just like all the other nations around. Those god's were warlike and warlikeness was an attribute projected by the Israelites onto God. And God then, just as in the New Testament, accommodated and stooped to steer, but not force, people to come to him as he is.
And so, the warlike utterances recorded aren't words of God but projections of a people used to projecting and dealing with warlike gods, onto God.
The above is an example of the kind of error folk (whether atheist looking to unpick the Bible or Christians who literalize the Bible as God's word (as opposed to God's inspired revelation).
You don't have to agree with Boyds position in order to see that simple, as-read, solutions have the potential to fall wide of the mark.0 -
The first openly gay football player in Australia has reiterated what a lot of users have said in this thread. Folau's remarks can be incredibly damaging to gay teens and make it far more difficult for them to cope.
https://amp.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-union/kids-are-killing-themselves-roberts-stern-message-to-folau-20190505-p51k87.html?__twitter_impression=true0 -
-
Swiping on phone's keyboard invariably goes wrong...0
-
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not sure what has to do with what I posted. There is no truth or potential for same in athiesm. Even when he dies, if he's right about the belief that there is nothing after this, he'll never know he's right.
There is in theism. All it takes is for God to exist. What I believe isn't relevant to that fact.
Indeed if its true then I am not confined to belief anymore. The only issue is whether God exists or not.
The notion that a god exists is exactly as likely as any arbitrary fantasy you might care to imagine being true until such time as someone can provide some shred of objective evidence that this god does exist. That objective evidence hasn't been forthcoming in the last couple of millennia so there is no objective reason to suggest that god exists. As such, if a theist lives there whole life on the basis of an afterlife they've just wasted their one and only life. That's not truth, it is delusion. The theist wants their god to exist because they fear death, but unfortunately wanting something to exist does not make it so. It does also have the nasty side effect of devaluing one's own life and the lives of others, e.g. the religiously inspired suicide bomber.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »That presupposes that other religions and cultural practices have no relationship with the divine.
No it doesn't. Syncretism and assimilation are pragmatic methods of easing a new religious tradition into the place of an older one by keeping all of the major festivals and traditions and simply re-inventing the history that surrounds them.0 -
No it doesn't. Syncretism and assimilation are pragmatic methods of easing a new religious tradition into the place of an older one by keeping all of the major festivals and traditions and simply re-inventing the history that surrounds them.
You mean like inserting Christmas where a another festival occurred? That's fine for the reasons you state. I thought you were talking of something more significant. Like flood narratives being common amongst ancient writings and the like.
Supposing the motivation behind all similarities is mere easing new traditions in to the place of old presupposes similarities necessarily motivated by the desire to ease new traditions into the place of old.
Reading your suppositions into a text is call eisegesis. A faulty approach.0 -
The notion that a god exists is exactly as likely as any arbitrary fantasy you might care to imagine being true until such time as someone can provide some shred of objective evidence that this god does exist.
That's an acceptable approach for you to take. You've nailed your colours to the mast of empiricism. That's the form of evidence you require to be convinced of things. And it's fair enough for you to measure according to your measure.
You can't, however, insert your beliefs about what ought to constitute evidence onto others regarding how they come to assess things.
That would be like me demanding you are satisfied God exists because I'm satisfied as to God's existence.That objective evidence hasn't been forthcoming in the last couple of millennia so there is no objective reason to suggest that god exists. As such, if a theist lives there whole life on the basis of an afterlife they've just wasted their one and only life. That's not truth, it is delusion.
That presupposes your method of evidence assessment is true. But there is no objective measure as to it being the final arbitrator. You are making a faith statement. Faith in empiricism.The theist wants their god to exist because they fear death, but unfortunately wanting something to exist does not make it so. It does also have the nasty side effect of devaluing one's own life and the lives of others, e.g. the religiously inspired suicide bomber.
As ever, you're not good at dealing with the problems your position faces. And merely pound the same old drum. Supposing your suppositions are true from the get go (without figuring out the problems in same) and drawing conclusions from there.
If your foundations aren't solid, everything you build upon them wobbles. Which is just about the whole of your post.
-
I'm not that impressed by Dawkins but you do have to give a nod to his realising he can't have the certainty that you express. The point being made was that you have no potential for obtaining truth (in terms of objective human rights and the like). I have that potential. You don't have to believe God exists in order to understand the potential is for God's existence (especially given the paucity of evidence undergirding your faith system. And you so evidence orientated)0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »That's an acceptable approach for you to take. You've nailed your colours to the mast of empiricism.
And yet when responding to one of your previous posts regarding objective truth I used the example of Pythagoras theorem, which is clearly based on rationalism as opposed to empiricism. I think your line of reasoning stumbles as you attempt to pigeonhole those who don't share your worldview. So for example when you talk about 'the atheist' you're talking about a very loosely defined group who have may have nothing in common other than not believing in a god or gods. For example, you seem to be a fan of Dawkins, i think he's an obnoxious prick. You talk about objectivity from the standpoint of subjective mysticism, which to my mind is about as far from objective as you could possibly get.0 -
Advertisement
-
Forgive my lack of preciseness regarding the make up of your belief system. You yourself bracket my belief system as mystical spiritualism when you surely know that the empirical and rational contribute to my understanding and navigation of reality. It is, for example, the view of the body climate science that I used in countering your 'onwards and upwards' view of human ethics recently.
The difference is in the ..ism. Your belief system holds that reality can be (potentially) fully understood empirically and rationally, etc .. only.
God's existence, for example, is demanded to be evidenced in those terms. Or else. There is something not a little untoward about this. From YOUR own perspective I mean. You are, in effect, demanding that God (if he exists) conform to your belief system. Now I know you would see your belief system bowing to an unbelieved in God as if bowing to teapots and unicorns (at least thats your public face). Nevertheless, you might see the oddness and impossibility of your position in the event God actually exists. God the monkey, you, the organ grinder. Thoughts?
-
Athiests typically share that view around here. I understand athiesm is a loose grouping, but its vocal element are cut from the same philosophical branches.
-
I'm no fan of Dawkins but he comes from that same angle as you. He is obnoxious and inaccurate where other vocal atheists aren't, but he makes some relevant points. Baby bathwater.
-
I talk of objectivity from the standpoint of your belief system not mine.
I'm trying to point out that since your system has no potential to demonstrate itself true you can't view yourself as other than a mere believer.
Rather than focus on the problems you think I face, you might concentrate on your. For that seems to be the m.o., deflect from own problems by pointing others (percieved) problems.0 -
I'm not sure what you mean by a "neutral viewpoint". I am sure, however, that atheists do have some inkling concerning what they believe. Hence the gentle suggestion that you might engage in discussion - say - by asking them whether they believe that "modern means good and old equal bad", rather than telling them that they do.antiskeptic wrote:
You seem to forget the fellow members aren't exactly a neutral viewpoint.robindch wrote:
You're free to believe whatever crusty, old religious stories you happen to like, but where something can be figured out easily (say, by asking your fellow-posters), then perhaps you'd like to do this instead of telling us what we think?antiskeptic wrote:A flaw in athiest thinking is that modern means good and old equal bad [...]
You might discover, for example, that you view of other posters is inaccurate.
Your inaccurate beliefs concerning non-religious is matched by your inaccurate use of language.antiskeptic wrote: »Forgive my lack of preciseness regarding the make up of your belief system.
Whereas you telling yourself that your beliefs are indisputably true because you believe that your interpretation of the bible is true - this somehow sidesteps the problem of belief?antiskeptic wrote: »I'm trying to point out that since your system has no potential to demonstrate itself true you can't view yourself as other than a mere believer.0 -
I'm not sure what you mean by a "neutral viewpoint". I am sure, however, that atheists do have some inkling concerning what they believe. Hence the gentle suggestion that you might engage in discussion - say - by asking them whether they believe that "modern means good and old equal bad", rather than telling them that they do.antiskeptic wrote:
You seem to forget the fellow members aren't exactly a neutral viewpoint.robindch wrote:
You're free to believe whatever crusty, old religious stories you happen to like, but where something can be figured out easily (say, by asking your fellow-posters), then perhaps you'd like to do this instead of telling us what we think?antiskeptic wrote:A flaw in athiest thinking is that modern means good and old equal bad [...]
You might discover, for example, that you view of other posters is inaccurate.
Your inaccurate beliefs concerning non-religious is matched by your inaccurate use of language.antiskeptic wrote: »Forgive my lack of preciseness regarding the make up of your belief system.
Whereas you telling yourself that your beliefs are indisputably true because you believe that your interpretation of the bible is true - this somehow sidesteps the problem of belief?antiskeptic wrote: »I'm trying to point out that since your system has no potential to demonstrate itself true you can't view yourself as other than a mere believer.
There are enough "onwards and upwards / crusty old" views on here for me to generalise .. on here. If I've heard "dusty old" / "society has moved on" once, I've heard it a million times in this thread. My apols to the exceptions.
You would have to point out the inaccurate language to me. Belief in the dictionary is tied up with proofs afterall. Rather, the absence of proof.
I'm not attempting to push my belief as true to you - how can I? (I can argue that they can be true and I know it but thats not central to things)
But largely the point, given the thread, is to query why one set of believers ought be able to extinguish another set of believers voices. On a right rather than might (a.k.a mood of the times) basis that is.
Old and crusty, society has moved on, onwards and upwards, UN ... seems to be about the cut of it. Not very sophisticated or substantial points are they? On a par with "the byble sayz it, ah bolieveit, thayt settlez it" believers on the other side.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Forgive my lack of preciseness regarding the make up of your belief system. You yourself bracket my belief system as mystical spiritualism when you surely know that the empirical and rational contribute to my understanding and navigation of reality.
I'm not sure what you mean by reality here. If you're referring to the observable universe that precludes what you call "the divine" unless you happen to be a pantheist. If you exclude the divine than the divine is not real.The difference is in the ism. Your belief system holds that reality can be (potentially) fully understood empirically and rationally, etc .. only.
Its still a belief system.
No I don't. Humanity and the sum of human knowledge is finite and while expanding will most probably will remain so. The totally of potential knowledge may or may not by infinite, but it is certainly orders of magnitude larger. We might understand a lot as the sum of human knowledge grows, but it seems reasonable that there is much more that we will never understand. A simple example of this is history. Short of inventing a time machine, we will never understand the totality of the past events in any great detail.
When dealing with open systems, science takes a position, which is continually being revised, of what is most probable based on observation and analysis. This is not a belief system, it is a method. I do not believe what science tells me is true in any absolute sense, I merely accept that the results of repeatable, peer reviewed emprical testing are more probably true than unsupported assumption. Where that unsupported assumption includes supernatural belief, and there is no evidence to support that belief, I take the position that the probability of the belief being true is negligible.Athiests typically share that view around here.
I'm no fan of Dawkins but he comes from that same angle as you. He is obnoxious and inaccurate but he makes some relevant points. Baby bathwater.
I talk of objectivity from the standpoint of your belief system not mine.
I'm trying to point out that since your system has no potential to demonstrate itself true you can't view yourself as other than a mere believer.
Rather than focus on the problems you think I face, you might concentrate on your. For that seems to be the m.o., deflect from own problems by pointing others percieved problems.
The only reason we're having this discussion is that you've seen fit to proselytise what most here consider to be specious mystical bunk, and defend religious homophobia, on an atheist forum. Why exactly would you do that? Is it an insecurity in your own belief system, which is an unusual one even by Christian standards in this country? Perhaps, like Folau, you're just keen to show us unbelievers how inferior we are to such an enlightened soul such as yourself.
The problems i face are all entirely mundane and I'm content in the knowledge that they'll die with me when that time comes. I don't pretend to immortality or that I'm in anyway significant in the grand scheme of things. To believe anything else for me would be both delusional and arrogant in the extreme. From a purely philosophical standpoint, I still appreciate Laozi in this regard and consider that the universe is full of wonder even though I will only ever know the smallest part of it for the briefest time.0 -
I'm not sure what you mean by reality here. If you're referring to the observable universe that precludes what you call "the divine" unless you happen to be a pantheist. If you exclude the divine than the divine is not real.
Reality is all that is. Our (belief) systems are the means whereby we attempt to establish what that all might be. To say that something is considered "observed" is to say that it satisfies the internal mechanism of our evaluation systems. Of course, the internal mechanisms of our evaluation systems are mere extensions of what we ourselves find satisfactory (consistency, logical, reasonable)No I don't. Humanity and the sum of human knowledge is finite and while expanding will most probably will remain so. The totally of potential knowledge may or may not by infinite, but it is certainly orders of magnitude larger. We might understand a lot as the sum of human knowledge grows, but it seems reasonable that there is much more that we will never understand. A simple example of this is history. Short of inventing a time machine, we will never understand the totality of the past events in any great detail.
Fair enough thus far.When dealing with open systems, science takes a position, which is continually being revised, of what is most probable based on observation and analysis. This is not a belief system, it is a method. I do not believe what science tells me is true in any absolute sense, I merely accept that the results of repeatable, peer reviewed emprical testing are more probably true than unsupported assumption. Where that unsupported assumption includes supernatural belief, and there is no evidence to support that belief, I take the position that the probability of the belief being true is negligible.
This is where the belief system kicks in. The belief is that what can be known about reality is to be known by this means. The point isn't that the known is considered provisional and based on probabilities. The point is that the known must and must only be established this way.The only reason we're having this discussion is that you've seen fit to proselytise what most here consider to be specious mystical bunk, and defend religious homophobia, on an atheist forum. Why exactly would you do that? Is it an insecurity in your own belief system, which is an unusual one even by Christian standards in this country? Perhaps, like Folau, you're just keen to show us unbelievers how inferior we are to such an enlightened soul such as yourself.
The point is to point out that belief systems are at work. The one vs. the other. I'm not quibbling about an area on which we can agree: knowledge can be obtained empirically. In so far as it goes, its useful.
It is specious bunk that reality be only accessed via the systems commonly believed on this forum. Where specious bunk means something assumed to be the case but which is not at all provable.The problems i face are all entirely mundane and I'm content in the knowledge that they'll die with me when that time comes.
The knowledge? The belief surely. Mundanity is a natural conclusion of that very belief system so no surprise there: you are being consistent with your beliefs.
The problem you face is the one you out here. You hold you know the nature of reality and your temporal place in it. Whereas you merely believe this. Whilst your belief system might say that what it concludes about purely temporal reality constitutes knowledge, such knowledge, built as it is on the foundations of belief, is but belief.0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urgent-threat-loss-earth-natural-life-un-report
Dunno how to hyperlink on a phone but here's another torpedo under the waterline for the "human rights have never had it so good/new is goof(sic)/ever onwards and upwards" point of view.
Not only is it mainstream media reporting, but its from that august society so many look to for an objective declaration on what constitutes a human right, the UN.
Fair enough, its animal and biodiversity rights which are being nailgunned to a cross here. But where animals and nature thread we too will shortly follow, it appears.
Doubtlessly the onwards and ever upwards movement believes that what science helped drag us into will surely drag us out of again.
My guess is that those who have profited from the fruits of scientific endeavor (capitalism).. and those who are addicted to those fruits (mankind) .. will cling like ****e to a shovel to ever onwards and upwards .. until gravity and an empty fuel tank work their empirically demonstrable magic.
Quite how anyone believes a holocaust which has produced this level of global damage, hasn't, in the process, had to trample all over human rights previously outside the reach of human transgression, is utterly beyond me. Older can be seen as better, if only because we hadn't, in times past, the capability to extinguish ourselves.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26430
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/48184011Israel Folau has been found guilty of a "high level breach" of Rugby Australia's player code of conduct after he said "hell awaits" gay people in a social media post.A three-person panel who presided over his hearing will now consider what punishment the 30-year-old will face.The Waratahs full-back, contracted with RA until 2022, escaped punishment for similar comments last year.....In April, Australian rugby league's governing body ruled out Folau returning to the NRL.
So he had his chance and he still decided to spread hate speech,0 -
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/48184011
So he had his chance and he still decided to spread hate speech,
It doesn't meet the definition of hate speech, unless the parameters have changed to include things that upset some people. I hope he drags it out as long as possible, costing the ARU a fortune and hurting the teams preparation for the WC.0 -
SoundsRight wrote: »the definition of hate speech, unless the parameters have changed to include things that upset some people.
I thought that happened ages ago...in some peoples' minds at least: "I hate it therefore it's hate speech."0 -
Just looking at the actual code of conduct he is supposed to have breached (available for download here).
Anyone care to guess which one they are using against him?1.1 Your safety and the safety of your team mates and opponents comes first. Be aware of, and always comply with, the Rugby AU Safety Policies and Guidelines.
1.2 Be a good sport, displaying modesty in victory and graciousness in defeat.
1.3 Treat everyone equally, fairly and with dignity regardless of gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnicity, cultural or religious background, age or disability. Any form of bullying, harassment or discrimination has no place in Rugby.
1.4 Do not repeatedly breach the Laws of the Game relating to Foul Play or Misconduct (as those terms are defined in World Rugby Regulations).
1.5 Accept and respect the authority of a referee, assistant referee, touch judge or other match or team official. Do not abuse, threaten or intimidate, use crude language or gestures, or show unnecessary obvious dissension, displeasure or disapproval towards a referee, touch judge or other match official, whether on or off the field, or a selector, coach, manager or other team official.
1.6 Do not make any public comment that is critical of the performance of a match official, player, team official, coach or employee/officer/volunteer of any club or a Union; or on any matter that is, or is likely to be, the subject of an investigation or disciplinary process; or otherwise make any public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game, a team, a club, a competition or Union.
1.7 Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations.
1.8 Do not otherwise act in a way that may adversely affect or reflect on, or bring you, your team, club, Rugby Body or Rugby into disrepute or discredit. If you commit a criminal offence, this is likely to adversely reflect on you and your team, club, Rugby Body and Rugby.
1.9 You must assist in any investigation or disciplinary proceedings and ensure that no inaccurate and/or misleading information is provided by you during the course of an investigation or hearing under this Code or in relation to any other disciplinary proceedings.
1.10 You must disclose any incident, matter or set of circumstances (irrespective of when it occurred) that does, or has the potential to, render you an unfit or improper person to be a Participant in Australian Rugby. This includes any incident, matter or set of circumstances that could damage the game of Rugby or bring into question the integrity and good character of its Participants.
1.3 - mentions "gender identity" but then that would seem to be more for if Folau had been having a go at some particular player for being gay, which he wasn't. Also that clause would seem like it was designed to protect the religious beliefs of somebody like Folau, so it should not be used against him.
1.6 - Bans "public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game". That could be it, especially if you consider the interests of "sponsors" to be the same as the interests of the "game"
1.7 "Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations."
Its a bit vague but that could be it too, especially in conjunction with the above.0 -
Advertisement
-
Just looking at the actual code of conduct he is supposed to have breached (available for download here).
Anyone care to guess which one they are using against him?
1.3 - mentions "gender identity" but then that would seem to be more for if Folau had been having a go at some particular player for being gay, which he wasn't. Also that clause would seem like it was designed to protect the religious beliefs of somebody like Folau, so it should not be used against him.
1.6 - Bans "public comment that would likely be detrimental to the best interests, image and welfare of the Game". That could be it, especially if you consider the interests of "sponsors" to be the same as the interests of the "game"
1.7 "Use Social Media appropriately. By all means share your positive experiences of Rugby but do not use Social Media as a means to breach any of the expectations and requirements of you as a player contained in this Code or in any Union, club or competition rules and regulations."
Its a bit vague but that could be it too, especially in conjunction with the above.
You seem to have missed these:
They are part of the code under Inclusion.
1.5 Sometimes these consequences mean that individuals who want to play Rugby or be involved in our game, feel excluded and as a result cease their involvement or even hide their sexuality. In some cases, individuals who continue playing may be subjected to homophobic language or actions and are needlessly and wrongfully subjected to discrimination, thus reducing their enjoyment of Rugby. These outcomes are unacceptable and unwelcome in our game.
1.6 Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this.
https://www.rugbyau.com/about/codes-and-policies/all-codes-and-policies0 -
SoundsRight wrote: »It doesn't meet the definition of hate speech, unless the parameters have changed to include things that upset some people. I hope he drags it out as long as possible, costing the ARU a fortune and hurting the teams preparation for the WC.
You should go in and help appealing the ruling so...0 -
I did miss that one. In my innocence I thought there was only one code of conduct!Bannasidhe wrote: »You seem to have missed these:
They are part of the code under Inclusion....
The "Inclusion Policy" has obviously been made up by some LGBT activists and was then rubber stamped by Rugby Australia... after all, who could possibly argue against the LGBT lobby.1.8 While this Policy has a focus on homophobia and makes specific reference to gay, lesbian and bisexual people, the overarching principles and intention of the policy is to make a positive statement on the importance of inclusion for all, and the importance of eliminating all forms of discrimination in our game.
The only thing is, what happens when religion and the LGBT definition of homophobia collide? This is the crux of the matter.
Elsewhere in the "Inclusion" policy I see this bit...
I ask two questions.1.6 Rugby AU’s policy on inclusion is simple: Rugby has and must continue to be a sport where players, officials, volunteers, supporters and administrators have the right and freedom to participate regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race or religion and without fear of exclusion. There is no place for homophobia or any form of discrimination in our game and our actions and words both on and off the field must reflect this.
1. Did Folau harass or bully any LBGT player, or did he seek to prevent any such player from participating in the game? IMO the answer is No.
2. Did anyone else harass or bully Folau on account of his religious beliefs, or did they seek to prevent him from participating in the game?
IMO the answer is Yes.
Its an interesting clash of "human rights". I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more of this sort of clash in future, as the LGBT lobby gets stronger and the religious lobby gets weaker. And not just in Australia, nor only in rugby.0 -
I did miss that one. In my innocence I thought there was only one code of conduct!
The "Inclusion Policy" has obviously been made up by some LGBT activists and was then rubber stamped by Rugby Australia... after all, who could possibly argue against the LGBT lobby.
The only thing is, what happens when religion and the LGBT definition of homophobia collide? This is the crux of the matter.
Elsewhere in the "Inclusion" policy I see this bit...
I ask two questions.
1. Did Folau harass or bully any LBGT player, or did he seek to prevent any such player from participating in the game? IMO the answer is No.
2. Did anyone else harass or bully Folau on account of his religious beliefs, or did they seek to prevent him from participating in the game?
IMO the answer is Yes.
Its an interesting clash of "human rights". I have a feeling we'll be seeing a lot more of this sort of clash in future, as the LGBT lobby gets stronger and the religious lobby gets weaker. And not just in Australia, nor only in rugby.
It may come as a surprise to you that some organisations have inclusive policies because they do not believe minorities should be bullied by the majority just for being different. Religion does not give you a free pass - if it did then what is people's issue with Sharia? They believe the crap they spout too.
There is no clash of rights. There are organisations adopting 'Don't be a Dick' codes.
They are telling people that should you wish to publicly 'be a dick' towards people you have an aversion to then you are not welcome in this organisation, should your aversion lead you to believe you have the right to regard them as lesser than you than there is no place for you in this organisation.
Folau did not say "we are ALL sinners". Folau pointed the finger at other people and said YOU are sinners.
Folau acted the dick.
No-one told him he could not believe what he believes. He was told that while we was employed by a certain organisation he was subject to a code of conduct that mean he had to not make other people feel less welcome.
He signed the contract.
He was warned.
But Folau had to be a dick about it.
I don't think there is any need to protect the rights of people to be dicks. I find that dicks are dicks at every opportunity regardless.0 -
Normally I would find your demonisation of dicks to be a form of misandrous hate speech, but for the purposes of this thread I have chosen to identify as a lesbian, so I'll let it slide this time.Bannasidhe wrote: »It may come as a surprise to you that some organisations have inclusive policies because they do not believe minorities should be bullied by the majority just for being different. Religion does not give you a free pass - if it did then what is people's issue with Sharia? They believe the crap they spout too.
There is no clash of rights. There are organisations adopting 'Don't be a Dick' codes.
They are telling people that should you wish to publicly 'be a dick' towards people you have an aversion to then you are not welcome in this organisation, should your aversion lead you to believe you have the right to regard them as lesser than you than there is no place for you in this organisation.
Folau did not say "we are ALL sinners". Folau pointed the finger at other people and said YOU are sinners.
Folau acted the dick.
No-one told him he could not believe what he believes. He was told that while we was employed by a certain organisation he was subject to a code of conduct that mean he had to not make other people feel less welcome.
He signed the contract.
He was warned.
But Folau had to be a dick about it.
I don't think there is any need to protect the rights of people to be dicks. I find that dicks are dicks at every opportunity regardless.
So yes, you can have a "code of conduct", which is a well established thing in many professions and activities. More recently there has been a fad for adding in an "inclusion policy".
It has been reported that Folau is being disciplined for breaching the player code of conduct, not the inclusion policy.
Maybe that BBC report is inaccurate, and maybe he is being disciplined for breaching the inclusion policy.
Either way, I'm just saying, maybe it would be a good idea for people to check that these inclusion policies are not self-contradictory. This one was produced by the LGBT lobby and also mentions race and religion.
Supposing the church hierarchy had produced the inclusion policy, and it had also included a ban on discrimination based on race and sexual orientation. What would that have looked like?
Probably no mention of words that can be interpreted in various ways, such as "gender" and "homophobia".0 -
Normally I would find your demonisation of dicks to be a form of misandrous hate speech, but for the purposes of this thread I have chosen to identify as a lesbian, so I'll let it slide this time.
So yes, you can have a "code of conduct", which is a well established thing in many professions and activities. More recently there has been a fad for adding in an "inclusion policy".
It has been reported that Folau is being disciplined for breaching the player code of conduct, not the inclusion policy.
Maybe that BBC report is inaccurate, and maybe he is being disciplined for breaching the inclusion policy.
Either way, I'm just saying, maybe it would be a good idea for people to check that these inclusion policies are not self-contradictory. This one was produced by the LGBT lobby and also mentions race and religion.
Supposing the church hierarchy had produced the inclusion policy, and it had included a ban on discrimination based on race and sexual orientation. What would that have looked like?
Probably no mention of words that can be interpreted in various ways, such as "gender" and "homophobia".
Don't be obtuse. You know exactly what is meant by "being a dick" so no need to act the Richard with that comment about identifying as a lesbian.
The inclusion policy is part of the code of conduct - Folau breached it.
End of.
Many years ago I played rugby in Australia. Amateur but still under the auspices of the ARFU. If I had posted on social media while wearing my kit and identified with my club that I thought religious people are deluded I would have expected, and deserved, to be dropped from the team - no matter how much I believed that sentiment. Had any of my very religious team mates in full kit and identified with the club posted that homosexuals were going to Hell unless they repented then they should, and would, have likewise been dropped.
Because in both those cases an individual is pointing a judgmental finger at people they 'disagree' with. In both cases an individual would have been acting like a dick.
It's as simple as that.0 -
Kind of ironic though, when you use an inclusion policy to judge Folau (on the basis of his "outdated" religious beliefs) and then exclude him from playing the game he loves and is so good at.Bannasidhe wrote: »Because in both those cases an individual is pointing a judgmental finger at people they 'disagree' with. In both cases an individual would have been acting like a dick.
It's as simple as that.0 -
-
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 26430
SoundsRight wrote: »It doesn't meet the definition of hate speech, unless the parameters have changed to include things that upset some people. I hope he drags it out as long as possible, costing the ARU a fortune and hurting the teams preparation for the WC.
The longer it drags on the more it shows religious people like him to be the nutcases they are,
It won't damage the team prep, "Wallabies coach Michael Cheika has said Folau is unlikely to be selected for Australia again."
The more he drags it on the more his career is screwed and nobody will want to touch him with a 10 foot pole. If you stand by your hatred then you better be prepared for the outcome.0 -
Advertisement
-
Kind of ironic though, when you use an inclusion policy to judge Folau (on the basis of his "outdated" religious beliefs) and then exclude him from playing the game he loves and is so good at.
Not as ironic as a man whose proclaimed messiah instructed his followers to judge not yet they be judged finds himself being judged for judging.
I believe that is known as Instant Karma.
BTW - would it be ok to sack him if he was only mediocre?0
Advertisement