nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Have we reach peak LGBT nonsense?

antiskeptic

Haven't read the detail but in essence a rugby players career called a halt to because he said gays and various other sinners will go to hell.

Leaving aside his dodgy theology (if God was in the business of excluding sinners from heaven then nobody would "get there"), is this not a case of LGBT sensitivity gone mad?

You are now not allowed to state your belief?

I can understand that some in A&A might rejoice but surely many can see the deeper ramifications: that at another time and place, their own expression of belief might not be of the moment and be condemned for mere expression.

Thin end of a thick wedge, this one.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nor is basing these 'objective' standards of human rights on a book that endorses:
Slavery = Exodus 21:7-11/Leviticus 25:44/Deuteronomy 20:10-15
Infanticide = Numbers 31:17/Psalms 137:9/1 Samuel 15:3/Isaiah 13:16/Hosea 13:16/Acts 7:19.

And that's just for starters...

antiskeptic wrote: »

The import is relevant whether you like it or not. To say with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist means you are .. well.. God. You know everything there is to know and find no God.

Presumably you'll score yourself shy of 7

Such as you have described. Indeed. You. Subjective.

Funny, I don't think it endorse slavery.

I've an IF/THEN. You've nothing. That's not a claim. It's the reality of the situation.

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.

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

Some of the stories are similar in the Bible, Quran and the Torah.

The order should be The Torah, The Bible, and the Quran.
Because that is the order they were written in.

The 3 Abrahamic religions share some stories - imagine that. It's almost like they might have read the previous book...

smacl

eagle eye wrote: »

Some of the stories are similar in the Bible, Quran and the Torah.

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.

eagle eye

Bannasidhe wrote:

The order should be The Torah, The Bible, and the Quran. Because that is the order they were written in.
The 3 Abrahamic religions share some stories - imagine that. It's almost like they might have read the previous book...

Yes but I'd presume they have all been translated separately which goes against your suggestion that a lot has been lost in translation.
I'm not religious btw, just pointing it out.

recedite

Two people on rafts arguing with each other, both claiming to be on an immovable rock.
The holy book written in stone V "the internationally agreed minimum standards" also written in stone.

smacl

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

All of the above are basic human rights that Christianity has fought to oppress in the past and that some supposed Christians still feel the need to oppress.

I'm afraid your holier than though arguments once again are more holey than holy.

ogsjw

recedite wrote: »

We're triplets.
Are we to understand that you will only respond to the quote if the correct person quotes it? It seems a lame response.

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'?

Bannasidhe

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes but I'd presume they have all been translated separately which goes against your suggestion that a lot has been lost in translation.
I'm not religious btw, just pointing it out.

Actually, the Torah which is in Hebrew - and the first book in the trilogy - would be fairly consistent. The Quran - the last book in the trilogy- which was written in Arabic the same. Of course both books contain a myriad of contradictions and have passages that no one is quite sure what they actually mean. Jewish scholars can spend their whole lives in study of a few passages - and academic arguments as to meaning can run for decades (if not centuries) Their authorship is unknown. There are parts that are completely contradicted by independent, and verifiable, historical and archaeological evidence.

Now the Bible - the middle book - well, lets just say the editors had at the one. The version we know was begun at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE - a panel of experts gathered under the direction of the (unbaptised) Roman Emperor Constantine I to agree on which works would be included and which excluded (the Apocrypha). Constantine had decided that to save the Roman Empire a State Religion was required. This religion would need an on-message book. Any who disagreed - with the agreed version - would be heretics.
So, a panel of experts (with their own agendas)under the instruction of an Absolute Monarch read a lot of Greek translations of various texts decided which texts were on message and so good for inclusion.
At various times in history the Apocrypha were considered 'holy', at other times not. Depending on the political winds blowing at the time. Most people now don't even know they exist.

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.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Two people on rafts arguing with each other, both claiming to be on an immovable rock.
The holy book written in stone V "the internationally agreed minimum standards" also written in stone.

Personally I'm arguing no such thing.

I'm saying before a person goes claiming a particular book is the thing they claim it is they should a) read the book. b) find out the publishing history of the book, and c) find out if there are other editions of the book - paying close attention to whether all versions of the book agree.

recedite

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Personally I'm arguing no such thing.

I'm saying before a person goes claiming a particular book is the thing they claim it is they should a) read the book. b) find out the publishing history of the book, and c) find out if there are other editions of the book - paying close attention to whether all versions of the book agree.

If you belong to a Christian sect, then you have your preferred version of the bible.
If you're a Mormon, you have your Book of Mormon. If youre a a Muslim you have your Koran (which was probably the most accurately transcribed text ever, prior to the age of printing)

If somebody believes in their preferred book, there is no point in you trying to prove it is different to some other book.

recedite

ogsjw wrote: »

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'?

Still sidestepping and dodging I see.
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.

antiskeptic

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.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

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

All of the above are basic human rights that Christianity has fought to oppress in the past and that some supposed Christians still feel the need to oppress.

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.

recedite

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.

Pherekydes

recedite wrote: »

But as antiskeptic points out, If your collective exists inside its own little bubble...

Like the bible bubble?

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

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.

antiskeptic

Pherekydes wrote: »

recedite wrote: »

But as antiskeptic points out, If your collective exists inside its own little bubble...

Like the bible bubble?

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.

robindch

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.

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.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

You haven't said a single thing to move fundamental beyond subjective. Collective subjective.

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.

I'm not sure how one could be any more subjective than that.

antiskeptic

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.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question isn't that I believe it.

Oh, so you don't believe the bible?

Truly, you have made great progress in your religious enquiries!

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Worldview roots produce output.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A flaw in athiest thinking is that modern means good and old equal bad [...]

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: »

One worldviews advancement is another worldviews regression.

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.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

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.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

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.

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).

smacl

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.

antiskeptic

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.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

A flaw in athiest thinking is that modern means good and old equal bad..

robindch wrote: »

You're free to believe whatever crusty, old religious stories...

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.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote:

The question isn't that I believe it.

robindch wrote: »

Oh, so you don't believe the bible?

Speaking of internet discussion forum memes. There was also the one where people asked a poster "did you read what you wrote before posting?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

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.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

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.