Do you believe in God?

[skoSko9]

There are some excellent arguments and analyses in the "Human Rights" thread for a way of formulating a rational set of human rights.

But basically this: You have the right to life. If you recognize your right to life, then you must recognize other people's right to life. Any action you perform that infringes upon the right to life of others (unless they do so before you) should be punishable by law. Any action you do that does not: (making porno videos of yourself, kinky sex, homosexuality, eating unhealthy foods, swearing a blue streak) should not be. Arbitrarily removing the freedom of choice which allows a person to live their life is immoral.

Granted, this leaves some leeway in interpretation, but viewed this way, it becomes apparent which historical laws are unjust.

The only time you see friction due to inclusive laws (laws which do not force people to conform, but which are truly inclusive and allow people to do what they want) are when some group objects because they want everyone else to do things their way and their way only.

You don't have the right to live, rights are created by the state which regulates how to coexist with others. To say that you are free to do as long as you follow your rights is a contradiction. You aren't really free if you give up a bit of freedom for the sake of "safety".

And saying that historical laws where unjust, why did they become unjust? Back in the day, there was nothing wrong in believing that it's okay to have slaves or killing indians and the inquisition. Now we seem to be reasonable to say, "That is wrong". Well let's push it. What about abortion, drugs, and death row? There are many examples where logic just justifies what is right or wrong, but not that it is right or wrong. That is my issue with those things. Maybe for controlling the masses, making laws based upon logic may be the right thing to do, but for the more controversial stuff I don't think logic can tell you. It becomes subjective in these extreme cases.

What? Encyclopedia isn't saying base logic on laws, he is saying to create laws using logic. Basing laws on religion (which has been done in the states multiple times) seems to me the more "convenient" thing to do (but also the wrong thing to do).

If you don't understand how just and moral laws could come about from logic, then the human rights thread is a good place to read.

I think I might've said it wrongly, but logic doesn't say much if anything about what is moral. This is the issue that Aristotle noticed when doing the right thing means breaking a law that on principle is reasonable. I understand that laws should be based upon logic. But is it sufficient? Doing the right thing can be and not be reasonable. It really depends on the situation, and even then one cannot know if it was the right thing to do. Only in reflection, after the act. it makes sense what was at cost. But you might need a bit of wisdom to know what happened. XoravaX made that point clearly of the issues at stake. Socrates was right, "I know nothing".

If reason killed God, then I can assure you, they also killed justice. If you say it's logical for x, y and z and that makes it moral, No no no, you feel it is right based upon logic. And for the most part it works on common everyday stuff, I don't deny that. But for justice to exist, it is based upon feelings, which it then becomes subjective. When it is not clear whether the choices are right or wrong, then you realize, "I know that I know nothing".

 

[arora]

Check the other thread.

 

[niky]

You don't have the right to live, rights are created by the state which regulates how to coexist with others. To say that you are free to do as long as you follow your rights is a contradiction. You aren't really free if you give up a bit of freedom for the sake of "safety".

You're free to give up the rights if you choose to. Membership in a state is not compulsory. You can choose to leave.

Rights are not created by the state. The state is created to defend them. You've got it the wrong way around.

-

Here's a start to the philosophical basis: Do you have the right to life? If no: Then I can kill you. Discussion over. If yes, we continue. Simple, right?

Once you agree that you have the right to live, you also grant others the right to live. If you deny that they have those rights, you can kill them. And they, in turn, will ignore your right to live, and then they can kill you.

Thus, you have the right to life. They have the right to life. And any action to interfere with it merits a reaction to stop the interference.

And that's all that's really necessary in any discussion of rights. And the source of the (non-religious) Confucian rule: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."

And saying that historical laws where unjust, why did they become unjust? Back in the day, there was nothing wrong in believing that it's okay to have slaves or killing indians and the inquisition. Now we seem to be reasonable to say, "That is wrong". Well let's push it. What about abortion, drugs, and death row? There are many examples where logic just justifies what is right or wrong, but not that it is right or wrong. That is my issue with those things. Maybe for controlling the masses, making laws based upon logic may be the right thing to do, but for the more controversial stuff I don't think logic can tell you. It becomes subjective in these extreme cases.

What logic, based on the idea that people have rights, makes slavery or genocide right?

What logic, free of religious brainwashing, makes the inquisition and crusades right?

There is nothing subjective about the right to life and the freedom to live it. Drugs are only illegal because of cultural taboos. The same cultural nonsense that made it okay to puff carcinogenic cigarette smoke straight into other people's faces for so long (which is a violation of non-smokers' rights).

Those on death row forfeited their rights, usually by taking the rights of others. Again, disregarding the right to life has consequences.

Perhaps the only gray area there is abortion, because it deals with two parties.

I think I might've said it wrongly, but logic doesn't say much if anything about what is moral. This is the issue that Aristotle noticed when doing the right thing means breaking a law that on principle is reasonable. I understand that laws should be based upon logic. But is it sufficient? Doing the right thing can be and not be reasonable. It really depends on the situation, and even then one cannot know if it was the right thing to do. Only in reflection, after the act. it makes sense what was at cost. But you might need a bit of wisdom to know what happened. XoravaX made that point clearly of the issues at stake. Socrates was right, "I know nothing".

If reason killed God, then I can assure you, they also killed justice. If you say it's logical for x, y and z and that makes it moral, No no no, you feel it is right based upon logic. And for the most part it works on common everyday stuff, I don't deny that. But for justice to exist, it is based upon feelings, which it then becomes subjective. When it is not clear whether the choices are right or wrong, then you realize, "I know that I know nothing".

We cannot punish intentions. We can only punish actions. The law must always be based on the objective. Unfortunately, the law isn't always founded on logic. This is why the law is sometimes unjust. Not because it is logical, but because it is formulated by people with personal agendas, to further those agendas.

What is a just law?

Laws against Marijuana are based upon subjective agendas and cultural taboos. Unjust.

Laws against drunk driving are based on statistics and science. Just.

Laws against gay marriage are based on cultural preconceptions. Unjust.

Laws against adultery are based on the fact that marriage is a contract, and adultery is the violation of that contract. Just.

-

It's fairly simple. My right and wrong are based on life. Whenever you do something that stops another person from living their life in the way they see fit and without negative consequences for others, then that's wrong.

-----

And yes... please do check the other thread. We've been at this long enough.

 

[skoSko9]

You're free to give up the rights if you choose to. Membership in a state is not compulsory. You can choose to leave.

Rights are not created by the state. The state is created to defend them. You've got it the wrong way around.

-

Here's a start to the philosophical basis: Do you have the right to life? If no: Then I can kill you. Discussion over. If yes, we continue. Simple, right?

Once you agree that you have the right to live, you also grant others the right to live. If you deny that they have those rights, you can kill them. And they, in turn, will ignore your right to live, and then they can kill you.

Thus, you have the right to life. They have the right to life. And any action to interfere with it merits a reaction to stop the interference.

And that's all that's really necessary in any discussion of rights. And the source of the (non-religious) Confucian rule: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."

Don't you see the problem with that? What right? I don't think anyone has the right to live, we just live. To kill me because I believe I don't have the right to live is illogical, it doesn't justify why you killed me. People have killed themselves and based upon what you said, since they don't want to live, we should kill them.

What logic, based on the idea that people have rights, makes slavery or genocide right?

What logic, free of religious brainwashing, makes the inquisition and crusades right?

There is nothing subjective about the right to life and the freedom to live it. Drugs are only illegal because of cultural taboos. The same cultural nonsense that made it okay to puff carcinogenic cigarette smoke straight into other people's faces for so long (which is a violation of non-smokers' rights).

Those on death row forfeited their rights, usually by taking the rights of others. Again, disregarding the right to life has consequences.

Perhaps the only gray area there is abortion, because it deals with two parties.

I won't deal with rights of people. I think I made myself clear that laws based upon logic can deal with most issues, but those "grey areas" proves my point that there is an issue that logic just doesn't tell much of what is just. Just that it's logically wrong.

We cannot punish intentions. We can only punish actions. The law must always be based on the objective. Unfortunately, the law isn't always founded on logic. This is why the law is sometimes unjust. Not because it is logical, but because it is formulated by people with personal agendas, to further those agendas.

What is a just law?

Laws against Marijuana are based upon subjective agendas and cultural taboos. Unjust.

Laws against drunk driving are based on statistics and science. Just.

Laws against gay marriage are based on cultural preconceptions. Unjust.

Laws against adultery are based on the fact that marriage is a contract, and adultery is the violation of that contract. Just.

-

It's fairly simple. My right and wrong are based on life. Whenever you do something that stops another person from living their life in the way they see fit and without negative consequences for others, then that's wrong.

-----

And yes... please do check the other thread. We've been at this long enough.

"Based upon statistics and science", ahhh the truthfulness lol.

"Lies, damn lies and statistics"-Mark Twain

We don't need proof to know that drunk driving is wrong. And I'm hesitating in saying that, because is it true because of the evidence or my belief? I guess now we have proof for it and it was always there... or was it?

The beliefs we were raised in are now justified through reason instead of God, and hey, I don't mind. I said this before, for the common average day it works wonders. But by proving that God doesn't exist (or any kind of supreme being), switching the roles to reason doesn't change the issue that in the end, so what? The good is subjective, and I guess the real issue is not how to show what is right or wrong, but how to reconcile the differences between beliefs. I think that in the end, that is something we will never truly know, but must be dealt with.

 

[arora]

drunk driving is not wrong until you violate someone, just saying.

Penalties are almost as stiff where there is no victim as they are when the victim dies(where I live).

 

[CodeName]

I'll try to be there to answear every questions if I have time. I am muslim, it looks like there are only athee there. The conversation's gonna be useful i hope.

 

[Sir Tuddle]

Don't you see the problem with that? What right? I don't think anyone has the right to live, we just live. To kill me because I believe I don't have the right to live is illogical, it doesn't justify why you killed me. People have killed themselves and based upon what you said, since they don't want to live, we should kill them.

I won't deal with rights of people. I think I made myself clear that laws based upon logic can deal with most issues, but those "grey areas" proves my point that there is an issue that logic just doesn't tell much of what is just. Just that it's logically wrong.

You're hinting towards something more like Johnathan Swifts "A Modest Proposal". You're an extra mouth to feed, killing you would not only stop that problem but would also create more foodstuffs for the rest of us, totally logical.

Our right to live doesn't just come from logic; it comes from things like empathy, understanding, and our natural want to live.

"Based upon statistics and science", ahhh the truthfulness lol.

"Lies, damn lies and statistics"-Mark Twain

We don't need proof to know that drunk driving is wrong. And I'm hesitating in saying that, because is it true because of the evidence or my belief? I guess now we have proof for it and it was always there... or was it?

It's most likely because of the proof. Many laws are formed in response to things that happened and need to be adjusted or banned altogether. If everyone had an innate sense of what was wrong without needing proof, why wasn't texting and driving outlawed when phones were newly conceived?

The beliefs we were raised in are now justified through reason instead of God, and hey, I don't mind. I said this before, for the common average day it works wonders. But by proving that God doesn't exist (or any kind of supreme being), switching the roles to reason doesn't change the issue that in the end, so what? The good is subjective, and I guess the real issue is not how to show what is right or wrong, but how to reconcile the differences between beliefs. I think that in the end, that is something we will never truly know, but must be dealt with.

To my understanding if you don't see a point in proving or disproving God (or any supreme being) what are you doing in this thread?

 

[CodeName]

Athee. Ask me questions about islam please. I want to talk with you about this religion.

 

[arora]

If everyone had an innate sense of what was wrong without needing proof, why wasn't texting and driving outlawed when phones were newly conceived?

Here is a law written where I live that covers that, before cell phones existed. Writing 20 more laws does nothing.

66-8-114. Careless driving. (1978)
A. Any person operating a vehicle on the highway shall give his full time and entire attention to the operation of the vehicle.
B. Any person who operates a vehicle in a careless, inattentive or imprudent manner, without due regard for the width, grade,
curves, corners, traffic, weather and road conditions and all other attendant circumstances is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Athee. Ask me questions about islam please. I want to talk with you about this religion.

Just jump in and say what you gotta say, some of us will read it and most likely respond.

 

[CodeName]

.

Just jump in and say what you gotta say, some of us will read it and most likely respond.

I have nothing to say, but as athee, you have lots of things to learn about every religion. I know A LOTS of things of other religion, so it depends if you are open-minded or not.

 

[arora]

Closed minded arrogant christian type here

 

[CodeName]

Closed minded arrogant christian type here

Who? Me?!

 

[Ealirendur]

Atheism is useless and obsolescent; prepare to be a-simulated.

I think that there are three reasons:

1. Maths & Logic
2. Pascal's Wager
3. The Simulation Argument

Of course, they may neither be necessary or sufficient.

Whether that does or should change in any way how one behaves is as much a matter for deep personal introspection and discussion as always.

As you were. I sound like a broken record, I'm sure.

In an unrelated aside, one of my favourite movies was Kundun; I vividly remember Chairman Mao's impeccable shoes, and him uttering the words "Religion is poison".

EDIT: Added a specific person for clarity.

 

[smokey777]

No

 

[Famine]

You don't have the right to live, rights are created by the state which regulates how to coexist with others.

No. Laws in respect of rights are created by the state. Please read the human rights thread.

And saying that historical laws where unjust, why did they become unjust?

Morality isn't mutable. An unjust law is unjust from the moment of its inception, whether or not people believe it's okay. Please read the human rights thread.

I think I might've said it wrongly, but logic doesn't say much if anything about what is moral.

Morality says what is moral. Logic derives rights from morality. Please read the human rights thread.

If you say it's logical for x, y and z and that makes it moral, No no no, you feel it is right based upon logic.

You keep using the word "logic" to mean "thought process". It doesn't. Its the immutable, objective logic we refer to, not an individual's interpretation of how to think from one step to the next. Please read the human rights thread.

Check the other thread.

 

[Denur]

... as athee, you have lots of things to learn about every religion.

Why?

 

[CodeName]

You know, lots of scientist convert to islam because there is one question they can't answear: they see something moving ( in the space ) without reason, like someone told to it to move. It is only one exemple, many other, as faar for maths, in the quran, GOD say to us that the one who is more intelligent, he is more near with me.

Why?

Because religion are there to answear athee questions.

 

[Famine]

You know, lots of scientist convert to islam because there is one question they can't answear

Cobblers. Scientists are scientists precisely because there are questions they can't answer.

they see something moving ( in the space ) without reason, like someone told to it to move.

Oh, you mean like general relativity answers?

Because religion are there to answear athee questions.

One advantage of being an atheist is that we can study these religions at leisure without any bias as to which one is correct. Theists who ascribe to one religion will always believe theirs is correct and use it as a base line when they study others.

 

[CodeName]

One advantage of being an atheist is that we can study these religions at leisure without any bias as to which one is correct. Theists who ascribe to one religion will always believe theirs is correct and use it as a base line when they study others.

Ah, so you want to know why islam is the true religion? Perfect, I can of course answear.

 

[Denur]

You know, lots of scientist convert to islam because there is one question they can't answear: they see something moving ( in the space ) without reason, like someone told to it to move. It is only one exemple, many other, as faar for maths, in the quran, GOD say to us that the one who is more intelligent, he is more near with me.



Because religion are there to answear athee questions.

What are atheist questions? And please check your spelling.

 

[Famine]

Ah, so you want to know why islam is the true religion?

Nope.

Largely because it isn't. Nor are any of them. The Abrahamic ones in particular are three different tellings of the same mashup of Sumerian and Babylonian myths and picking the right one of the three is like a three goat Monty Hall.

 

[CodeName]

What are atheist questions? And please check your spelling.

Sorry, english is not my first language, I try my best.
As Famine said, relativity question, after-death, purpose of life...

 

[Sureboss]

"How many atheists does it take to change a light bulb?" is probably one.

 

[CodeName]

Why not? I will try, whait

 

[Famine]

Why not? Whait.

I explained why not in my answer to you.

However on a more fundamental basis, religion is faith - belief - whereas truth requires evidence. Evidence denies faith - you cannot believe in something that is proven, only in what you do not have proof for. Thus the concept of one religion being "the one true" religion - the one you have proof for - is a denial of the essence of religion itself.

Be secure enough in your beliefs to believe in them without seeking proof. Don't try to prove them because that denies your beliefs.


On a site-use note, the Edit button sits in the bottom right corner of your posts. If you wish to change or update what you said, use it rather making a new post.

 

[CodeName]

So most people want to search and know which religion is the real. Islam is the response. Why?
Islam is based on GOD, PROPHETS, , ANGELS, satan believes. Islam came 1400 years before. We, muslim, have to believe that jesus, moses were prophets bit christianity considere jesus as the the son of GOD and maria, this is false because, GOD can have a son, but he is too glorious. ( Every thing I say is written in the quran ) . He was a prophet but people changed the bible and it isn't now the word's of God, the did not only changed becauSe of translations, the added lots of things and removed also. So quran came here to say that this is his final book and there will not be other prophets and to don't say the judjement day that you wasn't aware. How people converted to islam the first time? You think that muhammad ( peace be upon him ) came and said '' i am sent by GOD '' ? No. Quran came with many scientist prooves and evidences, this is why people convert to islam and also every day now. The big bang theory is described, the sirius star ( his movement and calculations )and many many other...

 

[Tesla]

So it's based on the same stories as Christianity but with a different interpretation? What makes your story on the man in the sky better than their story on their man in the sky?

 

[CodeName]

So it's based on the same stories as Christianity but with a different interpretation? What makes your story on the man in the sky better than their story on their man in the sky?

No, it isn't a different interpretation, to compare to the bible, it is like the truest book of the bible.
I don't get what you mean, which man?

 

[Denur]

Sorry, english is not my first language, I try my best.
As Famine said, relativity question, after-death, purpose of life...

Those are not just questions asked by atheists. However, they probably come to different answers than those from theists. Answers like "don't know", "can't know" and "don't care" are among those.

 

[Tesla]

By "man in the sky" I was referring to God.

Islam is based on GOD, PROPHETS, , ANGELS, satan believes.

That is pretty much what Christianity and many other religions are based upon.