The coming evangelical collapse

[foxpaws]

Cal, but don't we impinge on 'liberty' if we are telling people who don't believe in God that their rights come from God? Shouldn't rights be something that is ours just because we are human? Part of the human condition. Not dependent on some deity?

All people within the 'state' are governed and judged by the government. However, not all people are governed by God. They don't believe in God, and therefore do not live their lives as though they are governed by divine decree. So, we aren't all 'under God'. Our nation is built of many people, ideas, faiths, etc. So, what does tie us all together? I thought the constitution was an obvious choice, but maybe not the best - But, God doesn't tie us all together either...

 

[shagdrum]

Cal, but don't we impinge on 'liberty' if we are telling people who don't believe in God that their rights come from God? Shouldn't rights be something that is ours just because we are human? Part of the human condition. Not dependent on some deity?

What is relevant is the theories and ideas the nation was founded on, not on what you think it should be founded on. Weather God does or does not exist is irrelevant to weather or not we are founded on ideas that assume his existence. The whole justification for our cultural institutions lie in those ideas. You can't change that after the fact.

No one is being "told" to believe in God. All they are being told is that the Framers believed in the idea that our rights come from God and that is the assumption our country was founded with. It doesn't necessitate that the individual believe in God. An athiest or an agnostic can still recognize that our country was founded on an idea of rights that came from God and can accept the idea of Natural Rights, even if they don't believe in God.

To understand a political theory, you have to acknowledge and accept it's assumptions, even if only as a hypothetical. You can't just reject the idea that a car runs on an internal cumbustion engine. To understand how the car works, you have to accept that premise.

You may personally reject the theory of Natural Rights, but it doesn't change the fact that our Framers embraced it and founded our nation on it.

 

[foxpaws]

You can't just reject the idea that a car runs on an internal cumbustion engine. To understand how the car works, you have to accept that premise.

 

[Calabrio]

And if you want to build your own "car", or find one that has a different powertrain or operates on different principles, you're free to do so.

But if you seek to change the fundamentals of this "car", clearly state your intention and recognize that you are seeking radical change. Don't pretend that you want to preserve the car while you change the power plant piece by piece without anyone knowing it.

An electric car is quite a revolution.

 

[fossten]

It all seems ultimately cruel and nasty, not loving and caring.
In an extremely tiny spot of an incredibly vast and old universe creating billions of mostly good people who perish and/or suffer eternally except for some millions of sincere Christian believers who are spared for a mysterious purpose.
Why make people to ultimately suffer eternally.
What's the point?
So guys like you can sit there smug in heaven next to the vengeful God of the First Testament and enjoy it?
How ultimately sadistic and egotistical you really are, convinced in your certitude to the point of high arrogance.

You know, you really are ignorant of Christianity and of God. By commenting in such a fashion, you demonstrate very rudimentary thinking. If I thought you were asking in good faith, I'd answer your questions - but as it stands they appear to be rhetorical - so what's the point?

 

[shagdrum]

And now Cal, you will understand why I do what I do... I tried, and now I will revert back. But not on this thread, because I did try here.

I have to ask, WTH do you expect?!

If you are trying to play devils advocate, that is one thing. Being differential and asking questions are the way to politely go about it.

But you come in here and disregard out of hand what someone with a clearly superior knowledge of the issue is saying and counter with nothing more then a clever argument clearly based in ignorance and distorted information and aimed at changing the nature and focus of the debate from "what was" and "what is" (historical fact) to "what should have been" or "what should be" (wishful thinking). That is highly arrogant and presumptuous. You were rightly chastised for that exceedingly rude and decietful behavior.

You clearly have no concern with what principles this country was actually founded on and are only interested in distorting it to fit your world view. Again, that is highly presumptuous. How about letting your world view be dictated by reality instead of the utopia you envision that is completely unrealistic.

 

[shagdrum]

It all seems ultimately cruel and nasty, not loving and caring.
In an extremely tiny spot of an incredibly vast and old universe creating billions of mostly good people who perish and/or suffer eternally except for some millions of sincere Christian believers who are spared for a mysterious purpose.
Why make people to ultimately suffer eternally.
What's the point?
So guys like you can sit there smug in heaven next to the vengeful God of the First Testament and enjoy it?

Ever hear of "freewill"? And now you expect that consequences should be removed from actions attributed to freewill? You are never satisfied.

And where are you getting the idea that people are "mostly good", because it isn't in this reality. People are both good and evil, as a whole. for every would-be Mother Theresa, there is a would-be Hitler.

 

[foxpaws]

And if you want to build your own "car", or find one that has a different powertrain or operates on different principles, you're free to do so.

But if you seek to change the fundamentals of this "car", clearly state your intention and recognize that you are seeking radical change. Don't pretend that you want to preserve the car while you change the power plant piece by piece without anyone knowing it.

An electric car is quite a revolution.

Cal, obviously our founding fathers thought of the 'electric car' when it came to government structure. They thought outside the box. They based many of their concepts on Locke, etc., but I believe they certainly went beyond those ideas which were almost 100 years old by the time the Declaration was penned.

I don't seek radical change - I am looking at this with what change did the founding fathers enact. By the time the constitution was written, God was out of the equation entirely.

Our rights are not given to us by some deity, our rights are ours, within ourselves we find those rights. We are endowed with those rights because we are human, not because of a judeo christian God. If our rights are given to us by anything other than what we find within ourselves, then it is no different than saying our rights stem from a monarch. We just place the onus higher up...

How to move us in that direction during the time of the revolution - by not using 'God' as the 'endower' of rights, but by using the more generic 'Creator'. And by the time of the constitution, those rights had become ours, with no mention of any deity. We need to embrace those rights, because they are ours, not because something else gave them to us. Our rights - that is what laws of reason and nature dictated when they evolved those many years from Locke to Constitution, not just our "God-given rights". The founding fathers built beyond Locke and his restrictions to God... they went from 'Creator' to no mention of God at all in our binding constitution. They evolved.

Now, according to Shag, we should revert or devolve and go back to using God as a 'crutch'. That is not right, we need to take ownership of our rights. They are fundamentally our human rights.

 

[mespock]

It has to be a wonderful place in your mind ... too bad the rest of the people in the world cannot just accept that you are the smartest person and the rest of you just shut up and deal with it you ignorant bastards. Thanks for the good laugh of today.

Oh I know I'm stupid so go ahead LOL ....

egotistical - Believing oneself to be better and more important than others

narcissistic Having an inflated idea of one's own importance

Someone with Narcissistic Personality disorder (NPD) has at least 5 of these symptoms:

• has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
• is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
• believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
• requires excessive admiration
• has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
• is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
• lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
• is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
• shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

I have to ask, WTH do you expect?!

If you are trying to play devils advocate, that is one thing. Being differential and asking questions are the way to politely go about it.

But you come in here and disregard out of hand what someone with a clearly superior knowledge of the issue is saying and counter with nothing more then a clever argument clearly based in ignorance and distorted information and aimed at changing the nature and focus of the debate from "what was" and "what is" (historical fact) to "what should have been" or "what should be" (wishful thinking). That is highly arrogant and presumptuous. You were rightly chastised for that exceedingly rude and decietful behavior.

You clearly have no concern with what principles this country was actually founded on and are only interested in distorting it to fit your world view. Again, that is highly presumptuous. How about letting your world view be dictated by reality instead of the utopia you envision that is completely unrealistic.

 

[MonsterMark]

Oh I know I'm stupid so go ahead LOL ....

egotistical - Believing oneself to be better and more important than others

narcissistic Having an inflated idea of one's own importance

Someone with Narcissistic Personality disorder (NPD) has at least 5 of these symptoms:

• has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
• is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
• believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
• requires excessive admiration
• has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
• is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
• lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
• is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
• shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

I can't believe the way you are bashing Obama. I thought you were in love with him and he was going to save the world?

What made you finally realize that Obama is an egotistical narcissist?

I'm so proud of you finally seeing the light.

Way to go Rich.:Beer

 

[04SCTLS]

If I thought you were asking in good faith, I'd answer your questions - but as it stands they appear to be rhetorical - so what's the point?

How presumptuous of you.
It appears you have eaten all the brains and say you can answer questions about the mystery of life and death that have vexed scholars throughout the ages.
If faith is belief beyond reason there is no way you can give reasonable answers about the meaning of life and what happens after it.
No one can answer what you would do in heaven and why.
It is and always will be this way.

 

[mespock]

Bryan - While most Presidents may fall in that category - But that doesn't mean I'd want the narcissists of the political forum to run our country ...

Too bad more can't be like Cal ... even though we dissagree on prinicple I do have respect for him.

 

[shagdrum]

It has to be a wonderful place in your mind ... too bad the rest of the people in the world cannot just accept that you are the smartest person and the rest of you just shut up and deal with it you ignorant bastards. Thanks for the good laugh of today.

Oh I know I'm stupid so go ahead LOL ....

egotistical - Believing oneself to be better and more important than others

narcissistic Having an inflated idea of one's own importance

Someone with Narcissistic Personality disorder (NPD) has at least 5 of these symptoms:

• has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
• is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
• believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
• requires excessive admiration
• has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
• is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
• lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
• is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
• shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Nice. All you can contribute is personal smears.

 

[shagdrum]

Bryan - While most Presidents may fall in that category - But that doesn't mean I'd want the narcissists of the political forum to run our country ...

That is what you have with liberalism; elitists (who are inherently narcissistic) running the country and trying to increase their influence and power over the country. Conservatives work to decrease the power of the government, which is effectively taking power out of the hands of narcissistic elitists.

 

[mespock]

Yup you are right... LOL.. keep show it..

 

[ford nut]

Nice. All you can contribute is personal smears.

The pot calls the kettle black

 

[Calabrio]

The pot calls the kettle black

Was that a political comment or just trollish?

 

[shagdrum]

The pot calls the kettle black

Wow. You cited an idiom. Really told me there didn't you.

Oh, wait, your argument is a "Tu quoque" ad hominem logical fallacy!

The argument states that a certain position is false or wrong and/or should be disregarded because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. It is considered an ad hominem argument, since it focuses on the party itself, rather than its positions​

Not to mention the fact that your smug little argument inherently mischaracterizes me by implication. A "smear" implies a criticism that is dishonest and is not true. Where have I said something about someone that is not demonstratably true? Every time you accuse me of smearing someone, you can never cite those instances because they don't exist. It is not me who is smearing here, it is you.

 

[mespock]

Do you honestly believe what you type?

 

[shagdrum]

Do you honestly believe what you type?

Is it really that absurd to you to expect honesty, good faith and decency in a debate?

 

[Calabrio]

Cal, obviously our founding fathers thought of the 'electric car' when it came to government structure. They thought outside the box. They based many of their concepts on Locke, etc., but I believe they certainly went beyond those ideas which were almost 100 years old by the time the Declaration was penned.

You've now taken the analogy too far and I can't respond in kind.
But, back on point, no- the founders of this country never moved "beyond those 100 year old ideas." In fact, the notion of a country which recognized that our rights were granted to us by the creator and NOT from the government or a king was radical and contemporary at the time.

It's unfortunate that they are taken for granted now.

I don't seek radical change - I am looking at this with what change did the founding fathers enact. By the time the constitution was written, God was out of the equation entirely.

Again, this is fundamentally untrue. And if you go back and read the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers you'll see this.

But on back on point, this isn't a discussion of "God"or religion, just a recognition from where we get our rights from. Or most importantly where we DO NOT get our rights from. Government doesn't grant us rights- that's the fundamental point.

Our rights are not given to us by some deity, our rights are ours, within ourselves we find those rights. We are endowed with those rights because we are human, not because of a judeo christian God.

You've added the judeo-christian God to this discussion. That's not part of the discussion. Merely that we were created and are born with rights and that the government doesn't give them to us.

If our rights are given to us by anything other than what we find within ourselves, then it is no different than saying our rights stem from a monarch. We just place the onus higher up...

Well that would be true. And if you read the original writings you'll find that is a consistant theme in their writings as well. We are not all little kings of the universe.

How to move us in that direction during the time of the revolution - by not using 'God' as the 'endower' of rights, but by using the more generic 'Creator'. And by the time of the constitution, those rights had become ours, with no mention of any deity.

This isn't true. By the time of the constitution, the argument had already been made. You don't need to reaffirm you independence and the arguments stating so much again when writing the constitution.

We need to embrace those rights, because they are ours, not because something else gave them to us.

According to you, but this is a view inconsistent with the scholars and philosophers that founded the country. To imply otherwise is untrue.

Now, according to Shag, we should revert or devolve and go back to using God as a 'crutch'. That is not right, we need to take ownership of our rights. They are fundamentally our human rights.

Again, this is a fundamental flaw in logic.
Creatures aren't just born with rights. Do insects have rights? Do animals have rights? Or are those creations that we impart them with? In order to continue this logic you have to recognize that humans are different than other animals. If not the "rights' that you refer to as being human are merely the product of convenience and survival or a priviledge granted us by government. They aren't fundamental and they are bestowed upon us by government. If we are different than the other animals, then you are compelled to recognize some spark of divinity.

 

[shagdrum]

Cal, obviously our founding fathers thought of the 'electric car' when it came to government structure. They thought outside the box. They based many of their concepts on Locke, etc., but I believe they certainly went beyond those ideas which were almost 100 years old by the time the Declaration was penned.

You believe?! That is a strong argument.

You also are distorting the analogy. If you wanna run with it, they created the internal combustion engine driven car; before that it was all horse and buggy. Your electric car would be more akin to socialism or facism; a newer technology that has yet to be proven successful.

I don't seek radical change - I am looking at this with what change did the founding fathers enact. By the time the constitution was written, God was out of the equation entirely.

I have shown plenty of evidence to counter that; you have yet to show anything other then speculation to support it. If you understood the philosophical underpinnings of what the Framers created you would know that God and religion was what underpins the republic they created and that the country relied on it for that freedom.

Our rights are not given to us by some deity, our rights are ours, within ourselves we find those rights.

We don't gain our rights through some "strength of character" or soul searching. They were understood by the Framers as being a due to being human; a creature created in God's image. They viewed the rights as being externally given; not internal. So it is either government, or something greater then the government. The political theory they based their view on assumed that external force to be God.

We are endowed with those rights because we are human, not because of a judeo christian God.

Your baseless speculation does not change the historical fact that the Framer's believed that our right extended from our nature as a creature created in God's image.

If our rights are given to us by anything other than what we find within ourselves, then it is no different than saying our rights stem from a monarch.

If rights extend from the government, then the government can take away those rights as they see fit. If rights extend from God (a power greater then the government) then the government cannot take away those rights (except through due process on an idividual basis).

Now, according to Shag, we should revert or devolve and go back to using God as a 'crutch'. That is not right, we need to take ownership of our rights. They are fundamentally our human rights.

Ignoring the obvious mischaracterization...

You have any proof (other then assumption, baseless assertions and speculation) that we would be "devolving" in that instance? Or that it is "not right"?

The Framer's rightly assumed that increasing autonomy through increasing freedom would lead to an increase in both the inherently good and evil aspects of human nature. Government can only counter that increase in evil through more laws and reductions in freedom. In order to have a free society, the Framers viewed a religious and moral society as necessary because religion would curb those evil aspects of human nature while allowing for a free society.

It is quite annoying and insulting when you ignore and disregard the opposing point of view (POV) without first fully understanding and critically analyzing that POV. When you don't extend that common courtesy, it shows that there is no "good faith" on your part in the debate and that you cannot be trusted. When you don't understand the alternative POV, you cannot reasonably counter it; you can only fallaciously, dishonestly and decietfully counter it. However, it is a very effective way to avoid any critical analysis of your own POV.

Why should I extend some courtesy to you when you are not extending it to me? You actively work to rationalize your clearly immediate disregard of every premise in the theory I am laying out; therefore you cannot understand the theory. You have absolutely no reason to think that I am lying or being dishonest and you know I am well versed in this subject. Still you disregard out of hand anything I say. Am I not supposed to be insulted?

 

[ford nut]

Was that a political comment or just trollish?

How about a Observation, will that work?

 

[foxpaws]

But, back on point, no- the founders of this country never moved "beyond those 100 year old ideas." In fact, the notion of a country which recognized that our rights were granted to us by the creator and NOT from the government or a king was radical and contemporary at the time.

We are in agreement there – our rights do not come from the government – the government comes from us – and we decide the rights that government protects.

God gave us free will – not ‘rights’. It is ‘our’ rights that the government protects and secures – the ones ‘we’ have deemed necessary to protect. We the people, not God, decide that liberty is a right and that right needs to be protected. That is a conscious, human decision. That is our will. We recognize it as part of our condition. God didn’t grant us freedom upon our birth, he granted us free will, and what we do with that free will is our decision.

Merely that we were created and are born with rights and that the government doesn't give them to us.

Once again – yep, we are created, and born with rights, but those rights aren’t ‘bestowed’ by God. God didn’t dictate a bill of rights to Moses in the Bible. Those rights our founding fathers were so concerned with are human rights, not divinely defined or bestowed – and they do change.

Over time the right to be unique may be just as important as liberty. That isn’t printed there, in the constitution or the Declaration. But, with human cloning around the corner (or already here), do we have a right to be truly unique? Is it part of the human condition, as much as liberty? God hasn’t decreed ‘uniqueness’ anymore than he decreed ‘pursuit of happiness’ as a 'right'. Man decided on those rights our government protects. Within ourselves we declare that these are truths, that as our definition of self evolves, so does the definition of ‘self evident’.

Creatures aren't just born with rights. Do insects have rights? Do animals have rights? Or are those creations that we impart them with? In order to continue this logic you have to recognize that humans are different than other animals. If not the "rights' that you refer to as being human are merely the product of convenience and survival or a priviledge granted us by government. They aren't fundamental and they are bestowed upon us by government. If we are different than the other animals, then you are compelled to recognize some spark of divinity.

We are different – that is why the ‘human’ part comes in. It isn’t ‘life’ rights, but ‘human’ rights. I haven’t heard of ‘bug’ rights, although giant fuzzy spiders seem to think their rights are just important as mine. God could endow rights to all His creatures… He doesn’t endow rights to any of His creatures. He gives humans free will.

 

[foxpaws]

You also are distorting the analogy. If you wanna run with it, they created the internal combustion engine driven car; before that it was all horse and buggy. Your electric car would be more akin to socialism or facism; a newer technology that has yet to be proven successful.

Steam, Shag, or perhaps just hot air...