Posted 7 months, 14 days ago in 
Loading ...
I am writing today to point out what I believe has been the most significant ingredient in the dire direction that our country has taken. Just to clarify where I stand, there is no reason to blame any single person or party for the uncertainty and potential calamity that looms in our future.
I’m sorry, but I simply do not buy Rick Wagner’s relatively benign argument that atheists treat Charles Darwin as their “spiritual leader,” and I would instead counter that atheists treat Darwin as being emblematic of the triumph of science and reason over faith and blind assumptions.
That is the point of our post-enlightened, post-modern era. Darwin’s theory is less important than scientific fact, which has increasingly proved his theory correct.
Thus, when Wagner attacks Darwin, what he really is trying to do, but does not have the gravitas or is perhaps simply too intelligent to do, is attack science itself, a clearly untenable position.
I don’t appreciate this sort of proxy war on atheists — it’s stupid and doesn’t do anyone any good.
LANDON BAIN
Grand Junction
77 Responses to “Darwin is not the atheists ’spiritual leader’”
Posted April 12th, 2009 at 10:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If you are an atheist you should understand there are no rules. No right, no wrong, just relativism. It does not matter what you appreciate or not, you are just a glob of protoplasm, clearly an untenable position.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 6:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You don’t know any actual atheists, do you, Rev Wright?
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 7:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Those Jackasses down at the sentinel cut the first paragraph of my lte and pasted into this letter. What a bunch of jackasses.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 7:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
FutureQuest, I apologize for this off-the-subject post. I just read a column in the WSJ that agrees with much of what I told you about Cuba a few days ago. Here is an axcerpt:
“The U.S. has also engaged Cuba commercially. Sales of medical and agricultural products have been long exempt from the embargo. But Cubans are forbidden from importing those goods or owning businesses to distribute or sell them. Instead, the ruling elite enjoys privileged access to food, consumption goods and premiere medical services, while the population does without. Many pharmacies and hospitals lack even aspirin. The obligatory food ration book is pitiful and provides insufficient calories.
The latest, much hyped, “reforms” consist primarily of allowing citizens to buy cell phones and enter tourist facilities. But the cost of a cell phone or one hotel night exceeds the annual wage of the average worker ($16 a month). The government launched a novel, island-wide “dialogue,” but it was quickly stopped when the regime’s flaws surfaced too visibly. Finally, a recent purge inside the regime left the new dictator-in-chief in firm command.
Twenty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and “the world opening to Cuba,” Cubans are no more free. The state still decides where people can work, study and live, and it owns all mass media and means of production. The Internet, travel abroad, and all organizations not affiliated with the Communist Party or the state are barred.
No dialogue is possible with a leadership bent on survival sustained by an entrenched repressive apparatus. Among its favored tools are surveillance, removal from jobs and housing, forced exile, and arbitrary detention.
Cuba is ranked by Freedom House as one of the world’s most repressive countries. Over 200 political prisoners are being held along with tens of thousands incarcerated for “economic crimes” such as resorting to the black market for sustenance that ruinous central planning cannot provide. Prison conditions are barbaric. The death toll includes scores murdered while fleeing the island or lost at sea. The forgotten Guantánamo — on the Cuban side — hosts not only ghastly prisons, but also the equivalent of two Berlin Walls around the U.S. Naval Base to prevent escapes — one by land and one in the water, on the bay itself.
A ruthless tyranny has lasted far too long. It demands a sensible and unified response.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123958449490312295.html
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 7:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I do. Why do you jump to a conclusion like that without any evidence?
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 8:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rev Wright,
Because what you posted is typical of those who have no idea what atheism really is, only what they think it should be.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 9:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rv. Wright: “If you are an atheist you should understand there are no rules. No right, no wrong, just relativism. It does not matter what you appreciate or not, you are just a glob of protoplasm, clearly an untenable position.”
Once again, the individual assumes much about atheists. There still remains respect for the dignity of the individual, and just because he/he is a human being. And, if we are to judge by the content and tone of many of the posts, even in this forum, there appears to be much more of a recognition and respect for others than many calling themselves “Christians.” For the latter appear to be more concerned with having reached the conclusion that, because they “believe” in something (in this case “god”) that others who don’t are somehow lesser human beings (untermenschen), and should be subject to the “believers.”
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 10:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I find that most atheists tend to want to avoid any meaningful discussion on their beliefs, and only want to spend their time attacking other’s beliefs. How would you describe your beliefs?
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 10:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Strong atheist towards the Christian god (Positive belief that such a being does not exist).
Weak atheist towards the concept of gods in general (Haven’t seen any evidence for it, so I withhold belief until such evidence arrives but can’t say positively that no “gods” exist anywhere).
I would have to say that the atheists you know are not typical.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 11:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
American Atheists National Convention was April 9 - 12, 2009 in Atlanta, GA.
“An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment.” http://www.atheists.org/about
According to this definition, in order to understand an Atheist, I must know definitions of “God”, “Heaven” and ‘Prayer”, which I do possess and practice, but something in which an Atheist swears no belief and, consequently, no personal experience or knowledge. So, from my standpoint, I understand an Atheist better than an Atheist, because I also know how to find in myself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it, through knowledge of myself and my fellow man to find understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment. Drawing the circle even wider, I love myself and my fellow man as well as God and am working toward Heaven on Earth for all to participate. Finding a life of fulfillment is a huge task, which is made easier with God, Heaven and Prayer in it. If Atheists elect to pursue it without these benefits, I will not protest.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 11:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson,
You seem to be making an assumption about atheists that is not necessarily valid. I was a Christian for over twenty years. Do you really think I have “no personal knowledge” of God or prayer?
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 12:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, was I speaking only to you Scott? No, but I will answer your question now that you pose it. I have known specific people who identify with Christianity until they find what they believe. They never find a benefit from God, Heaven, Prayer or other religious/spiritual beliefs.
So, from my standpoint, their soul never possessed an understanding of God, Heaven, Prayer or other religious/spiritual beliefs. And now you claim to be one of these specific people. Congratulations!!
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 12:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson: “..in order to understand an Atheist, I must know definitions of “God”, “Heaven” and ‘Prayer”, which I do possess and practice”
Is the individual absolutely “sure” that he/she “knows” those definitions or merely “believes that “he/she knows”? If so, is the individual even aware of where those definitions came from? Did he/she examine those prior to “accepting” them, or were they accepted only because someone told him/her that he/she should?
When we speak of “definitions”, merely substituting one word for another is no type of substantive definition. That requires that one look at what are all of the attributes of those “objects” attempting to be defined. And, if the indvidual will look closely, he/she may find that how he/she defines his/her “god”, it is totally in materialistic terms; i.e. characteristics which he she finds “desirable” and which therefore MUST BE an attributes of his/her divinity. And, that being the case, the individual does not believe in any “god” but that “god” is created by the individual.
Henderson: “.. I love myself and my fellow man as well as God and am working toward Heaven on Earth for all to participate.”
The individual may wish to insure that that he/she knows the difference between “loving oneself” and “being in love with oneself.” There is a wide chasm between the two.
As to working to create a “Heaven on earth” for himself and others. The individual may wish to consider the fact that this “utopian state” he/she wishes for himself and others, is not achieved by creating a “hell on earth” for others. That has been tried innumerable times in the past, even by religions, and the result has always been the same, disaster for others and for humanity.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 12:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You know, I haven’t visited (much less bothered to post) here in 6 months +/-. I forget my book to read while I am lunching so I decide “What the heck, I haven’t checked out the letters to the editor in awhile. I’ll log on to see what’s happening”.
No surprise, not a single thing has changed. The same players, same subject matter, same mud slinging, same “mine is bigger, badder and better than yoursa and I can prove it” mentality. Posters are using more civilized words and tones in order to not have their posts chopped… but the same, nonetheless.
Now I remember why I don’t waste my time. Have fun playing, boys.
Oh, and I can almost verbatim state what some of you would reply to me, but I assure you, I will not be back to read it. Don’t trouble yourselves.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 12:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson,
You made a generalized statement that atheists have “no belief and, consequently, no personal experience or knowledge.”
I was merely pointing out that your statement is not true for all atheists. Many atheists were religious in their past, and thus do possess personal knowledge of those elements. I also know atheists who were raised as such, to which you statement probably does apply.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 12:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK, Sue, don’t let the cybernetic screen door hit you on your virtual butt on the way out.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 12:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, RLaitres, my definitions work for me. Your questions are but a pittance of the questions asked and answered.
In the context of “An Atheist loves himself”, I hadn’t considered the “being in love with oneself” option, but I see that you, through your approach, exhibit it.
Your approach is so boring, asking questions without answers.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 1:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From my standpoint, Scott, having never found a benefit, their soul never possessed an understanding of God, Heaven, Prayer or other religious/spiritual beliefs and, therefore, have no personal experience or knowledge. On the flip side, having found a benefit would seek to grow the benefit.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 1:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, while I have limited information concerning my interactions with atheists, a data set of one, I don’t know that you can jump to the conclusion that the atheists I know are not typical. An atheist is going to react differently to a person of faith than to a fellow non-believer. Your experiences with atheists are going to be different than mine.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 1:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson,
Why do you assume that someone who became an atheist did so because they found no benefit in religion? I happen to think there are benefits to religion. I also think that those benefits can be derived from other sources.
You seem to have an all-or-nothing standpoint. Life is rarely all-or-nothing.
Rev. Wright,
Exactly. Atheism does not define what someone “is” but rather what he “is not.” You cannot learn much about someone simply from the fact that he does not collect stamps, likewise being an atheist only means he/she lacks belief in gods. Beyond that, every atheist is different.
But very few of the ones I know are unwilling to discuss their beliefs. It is, however, difficult to discuss beliefs that one finds childish without seeming to be “bashing” the other person’s beliefs.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 2:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
- Atheism is the lack of belief, and the things associated with those beliefs. Any beliefs in right or wrong would be independent of a lack of belief in a deity. An atheist could have a strong moral character, but would be hard pressed to articulate a foundation for it.
- The assumption that the other’s belief is “childish”. It does make meaningful discussion immanently more challenging.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 2:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rv. Wright,
Right and wrong are not inherently religious. There are very basic reasons for what most people in our culture consider “moral behavior” that are not based on religion at all. I have found that atheists tend to have spent more time considering the subject of morality and thus have a deeper sense of morality than many Christians I know.
And it’s not an “assumption” that the belief is childish - it’s a conclusion. Discussing the factors that led to that conclusion are often mistaken for “bashing” those beliefs. Note that I don’t mean “conclusion” in the sense that it is the inevitable point one will reach, only the point I (and many atheists) have reached. I just want to clarify that there are reasons for saying that, and not just “I believe it”.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 2:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Faith, Scott, is an all or nothing affair. There is no middle-of-the-road faith, by definition. It is one of those rare things in life. One either has it or doesn’t.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 3:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson,
Assuming that you are referring to inductive faith, I would agree with you. Some people, however, find out that their faith was not based on what they thought it was based on. Some never bother to look.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 3:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The quote from http://www.atheists.org/about that says:
“An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy.”
- is a good example of a false dichotomy that implicitly assumes those who profess love for God do not also love themselves and their fellow man. Loving God and loving one’s fellow man are not mutually exclusive. In addition, the belief that “working towards heaven” involves how we treat our fellow man now, here on earth, is not unique to Atheists by any stretch.
The only “problem” I have with Atheists, (or anyone else that behaves the same), is when individuals feel it necessary to bash someone else’s beliefs in order to build up or express their own.
The “holiday” displays in WA this past year is a good example. The Christian Nativity and the Jewish Menorah displays simply represented their own beliefs about the season and events being celebrated. On the other hand, the atheist “winter solstice” display was:
“At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds”
If the display was really about the celebration of the winter solstice, and if the atheists who put up that display were more tolerant and respectful, there would have been no “reason” to bash, pass judgment and negatively stereotype the beliefs of others. That display only served to give atheists and anti-theists a bad name.
In reality, from the standpoint of “reason”, the winter solstice is merely the date at which the earth’s tilt puts the sun at it’s lowest elevation. The origins of any “celebration” have to do with the end of winter and the beginning of the return to the growing season; death and rebirth etc. Almost all cultures have traditions which celebrate the winter solstice and most are steeped in religious and spiritual beliefs.
If the atheists had wanted to put up a display that truly acknowledged the “reason” behind celebrating the winter solstice, they’d be hard pressed to find a traditional symbol that wasn’t already associated with some form of religious or spiritual belief. Not impossible though - Perhaps a figure of Stonehenge? Or a telescope? Or maybe a globe? Hmmmm…. gotta wonder though if there’s any real “reason” to *celebrate* something that happens every year as a scientific matter of course. Hmmmmm…. as far as I can tell, the atheists/anti-theists on this forum worship the Supreme Court more than “reason”…..maybe they need a new date to celebrate the foundation of their “faith”?
I know, I’m just being silly…… but when you think about it…..
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 3:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: Rights, as in “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”, are what are right.
Wrong is converse of right.
Rights are based on Natural Law, which gives definition to the Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness just beginning a list of our rights here in the United States, providing us with the basis of what is right.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 3:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott - anybody can find logical reasons to find something “childish” in just about anything. The process is called ridicule. Personally I think it’s “childish” that you can’t talk about your beliefs on their own merit. So far you haven’t provided much reason YOUR life is better by not believing in God. All you talk about is what’s wrong with everyone else. If you find faith “childish” so be it. How has not believing in God changed your life or those around you for the better? Did YOU become more tolerant? Did YOU become kinder?
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 3:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson: “Your approach is so boring, asking questions without answers.”
That is an interesting response: That questions are boring. Now, could that be because people are afraid to “ask” the questions, or the right questions, because they believe that they already have the answers; i.e. “Can’t be wrong”?
It is quite fascinating that some, while claiming that their “faith” is personal, and that they have the “absolute right” to believe as they will, then and in the same post or opinion piece) immediately proceed to deny that same “right” to others who do not “believe” as they do. That, some of us find to be absolutely astounding.
Looking at Henderson’s “quote” of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, it would appear that while the claim to believing in equality is present, it is either not fully understood, or cannot be accepted. As, in far too many cases, far too many individuals who claim to believe in “equality”, cannot at all stand to be “equal” themselves.” That is why they are constantly searching for something that would make them appear “more equal” than others.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 4:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog: “I just read a column in the WSJ . . .”
Thanks for the comments related to your personal experiences with Cuba in your previous posts. I read the link and I think that last line of “A ruthless tyranny has lasted far too long” sums it up about as well as can be. I hadn’t realized how bad conditions were in Cuba. Your heart just goes out to the Cubans for having to live under such a brutal and corrupt dictatorship.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 4:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMN to Scott: “Personally I think it’s “childish” that you can’t talk about your beliefs on their own merit. So far you haven’t provided much reason YOUR life is better by not believing in God. All you talk about is what’s wrong with everyone else. If you find faith “childish” so be it. How has not believing in God changed your life or those around you for the better?”
As I recall, JMH has admitted that “religious” belief is a personal thing. We can take the last sentence of JMH’s paragraph, and ask him the following question also as to how has “believing” in a “god” changed his life, and was it for the better or worse. Is he now telling us that because he believes in a “god” it has made him better than others who don’t? If that is the case, he may wish to re-examine which “god” he believes in, and if it might be more of a matter of pride on his part than anything have to do with the issues of “god” or “religion.”
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 4:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson,
“Rights, as in “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”, are what are right.”
In this country, yes. Unfortunately, much of the rest of the world does not agree.
“Wrong is converse of right.”
So is Left.
“Rights are based on Natural Law, which gives definition to the Rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness just beginning a list of our rights here in the United States, providing us with the basis of what is right.”
I think you’re mixing definitions here. Life is not a natural law, otherwise murder would be impossible. Liberty is not a natural law, or else slavery would be impossible as well. We consider life and liberty to be rights, but that does not mean the universe agrees.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 4:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson: “Faith, Scott, is an all or nothing affair. There is no middle-of-the-road faith, by definition. It is one of those rare things in life. One either has it or doesn’t.”
The statement that “there is no middle-of-the-road faith” is contravened by Pascal’s Wager. Pascal made his famous wager as an effort to convince people that it was safer to “believe” in God than to not believe. What he was saying, in effect, was that you would be better off pretending to believe in God (even if you had your doubts) because of the calculated risk of potential rewards against potential losses. Sounds like a middle-of-the-road faith to me.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 4:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH,
“The quote … is a good example of a false dichotomy that implicitly assumes those who profess love for God do not also love themselves and their fellow man. Loving God and loving one’s fellow man are not mutually exclusive. In addition, the belief that “working towards heaven” involves how we treat our fellow man now, here on earth, is not unique to Atheists by any stretch.”
It says nothing of the kind. It is simply a statement about what atheists believe. Is it possible that you are so convinced that atheists cannot have any redeeming qualities that you have to read things that aren’t there into that statement?
“The only “problem” I have with Atheists, (or anyone else that behaves the same), is when individuals feel it necessary to bash someone else’s beliefs in order to build up or express their own.”
As I pointed out to Rv. Wright, it is difficult to discuss beliefs that are polar opposites without one side taking offense. Especially when one of the basic tenets of the religion is that it cannot be wrong.
“The “holiday” displays in WA this past year is a good example. The Christian Nativity and the Jewish Menorah displays simply represented their own beliefs about the season and events being celebrated. On the other hand, the atheist “winter solstice” display was:
“At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds”
If the display was really about the celebration of the winter solstice, and if the atheists who put up that display were more tolerant and respectful, there would have been no “reason” to bash, pass judgment and negatively stereotype the beliefs of others. That display only served to give atheists and anti-theists a bad name.”
Among the theistic populace, I’m sure it did. Others felt it was a bold step that needed to be said.
“In reality, from the standpoint of “reason”, the winter solstice is merely the date at which the earth’s tilt puts the sun at it’s lowest elevation. The origins of any “celebration” have to do with the end of winter and the beginning of the return to the growing season; death and rebirth etc. Almost all cultures have traditions which celebrate the winter solstice and most are steeped in religious and spiritual beliefs.”
And that is why Christmas is celebrated when it is. It was co-opted from the pagan solstice celebrations. Evidence: shepherds aren’t in the fields with their flocks in December.
“If the atheists had wanted to put up a display that truly acknowledged the “reason” behind celebrating the winter solstice, they’d be hard pressed to find a traditional symbol that wasn’t already associated with some form of religious or spiritual belief. Not impossible though - Perhaps a figure of Stonehenge? Or a telescope? Or maybe a globe? Hmmmm…. gotta wonder though if there’s any real “reason” to *celebrate* something that happens every year as a scientific matter of course. Hmmmmm…. as far as I can tell, the atheists/anti-theists on this forum worship the Supreme Court more than “reason”…..maybe they need a new date to celebrate the foundation of their “faith”?”
I’d say the display that was put up summed that up pretty well.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 4:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL says, “As I recall, JMH has admitted that “religious” belief is a personal thing.”
Taken out of context, whatever I’ve said it the past may or may not have anything to do with my response to Scott’s seeming inability to explain his own beliefs on their own merit.
RL says, “Is he now telling us that because he believes in a “god” it has made him better than others who don’t?”
Nope. That was Scott who said his “old” faith was “childish” and that his new found lack of faith made others’ faith seem “childish”. So that’s who you should ask about “pride” and whether calling other people’s faith childish makes him feel better.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 4:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH,
“Scott - anybody can find logical reasons to find something “childish” in just about anything. The process is called ridicule. Personally I think it’s “childish” that you can’t talk about your beliefs on their own merit.”
When have you asked me about my beliefs? I’d be happy to discuss the issue with you, but you have to accept that giving reasons for not accepting your beliefs does not equate to ridiculing them.
“So far you haven’t provided much reason YOUR life is better by not believing in God. All you talk about is what’s wrong with everyone else.”
No one has asked how my life is better. Believe it or not, I don’t push my beliefs on others. That doesn’t mean I don’t point out what I see as problems or contradictions in other people’s beliefs. That’s called discussion. This is a discussion board. You don’t want your opinions to be discussed, don’t post them on a public forum.
“If you find faith “childish” so be it. How has not believing in God changed your life or those around you for the better? Did YOU become more tolerant? Did YOU become kinder?”
Actually, yes. I realized a lot of the things I had disagreed with before were based solely on my religious beliefs. There was no other reason for it. I realized that a bronze age story was not a valid reason to deny someone the same rights as anyone else.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 4:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Nope. That was Scott who said his “old” faith was “childish” and that his new found lack of faith made others’ faith seem “childish”. So that’s who you should ask about “pride” and whether calling other people’s faith childish makes him feel better.”
It doesn’t make me feel better, but I have to be honest. Would you rather I lied? Would that satisfy your preconceptions of what an atheist is supposed to do?
Sorry to disappoint you.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 5:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says, “As I pointed out to Rv. Wright, it is difficult to discuss beliefs that are polar opposites without one side taking offense. Especially when one of the basic tenets of the religion is that it cannot be wrong.”
It may be for you - but I have no problem whatsoever discussing my faith without ever mentioning whatever I *don’t* believe. You’re the one in this conversation that doesn’t seem to be able to discuss your beliefs without making the basic tenets that someone else believes into something “wrong”….or “childish” as you say.
When I said,
“If the atheists had wanted to put up a display that truly acknowledged the “reason” behind celebrating the winter solstice…”,
and you say,
“I’d say the display that was put up summed that up pretty well”
…then you’re admitting that the “reason” the atheists chose to celebrate the winter solstice was to denigrate the other celebrations (since that’s what it did). Nice.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 5:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “If you find faith “childish” so be it. How has not believing in God changed your life or those around you for the better? Did YOU become more tolerant? Did YOU become kinder?”
Scott: “Actually, yes. I realized a lot of the things I had disagreed with before were based solely on my religious beliefs. There was no other reason for it. I realized that a bronze age story was not a valid reason to deny someone the same rights as anyone else.”
Disagreeing with something is different from denying someone else their “rights”. Or, maybe I should ask, which rights were you denying someone else? Remember, the conversation is about what atheists/anti-theists believe - on it’s own merit not about what others believe that you might think is “childish”. It’s about how changing your belief in “childish ideas” to non-belief changed your life - hopefully for the better.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 6:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres quotes me saying: “That questions are boring.”
My screen quotes me saying: “Your approach is so boring, asking questions without answers.” “Your questions are but a pittance of the questions asked and answered.”
Anyone help out here, if I am misstating.
First, RLaitres is boring.
Second, he is wrong.
Third, where did ‘“faith” is personal’ and ‘“absolute right” to believe’ come from?
Fourth, RLaitres’ reference to “equality” misses our Declaration of Independence’s and Constitution’s purpose of protecting equal rights not providing equal things or making people equal.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 6:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
FutureQuest: Pascal was hedging his bets by pretending to believe, so if God exists, he makes out okay after death.
Pascal was a smart guy, and his was a mental exercise not a physical or spiritual reality.
Believing in God is like hitting a home run.
One can’t fake it. Either one hits it or one doesn’t.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 6:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson responds:
“First, RLaitres is boring.”
An opinion only. If questions are not the way to get answers, then what is the way?
Second, he is wrong.
In what area and is RLaitres “wrong”? Is that also but an opinion? Why, because Henderson wants him to be? Sorry, but that is not the way things work in the real world.
“Third, where did ‘“faith” is personal’ and ‘“absolute right” to believe’ come from?”
If “faith” is not “personal” then what is it? Is it public? If the latter, then it is no more sacrosanct than is anything else that is places in that sector. Or, is Henderson stating that “his/her” faith is somehow “superior” to that of others? Is Henderson saying that he/she does not have an absolute right to believe as he/she does? If not, what “right” does Henderson have to hold the beliefs he/she does? Perhaps he/she would like me or some other person to impose our “beliefs” on him/her. Seems that if Henderson would claim that not to be the case, the question must be asked, once again, doe Henderson believe he/she has a “right” to impose his/her beliefs on someone else? If so, then upon what foundation does he/she claim that right?
“Fourth, RLaitres’ reference to “equality” misses our Declaration of Independence’s and Constitution’s purpose of protecting equal rights not providing equal things or making people equal.”
Actually, RLaitres did not miss the Declaration of Independence at all. And, the subject of equality in that document refers to “equality” between individuals as human beings. That being the case, not only is every person equal to every other at birth, but remains so throughout their life, as a human being. Inequality is something people “add on” because they can’t stand being “equal.” In an effort to deny that equality, they will look for some cause, any cause, looking for something that will provide them with the delusion of superiority. They will look in religion, race, ethnicit, sex, sexual orientation, language, culture, political ideology, economics, etc.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 6:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: How is “So is Left.” germane to the subject at hand?
If “Life is not a natural law” and “Liberty is not a natural law” why does Laws of Nature appear here?
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Scientific laws are the laws that cannot be broken.
For breaking other laws there are penalties, death for murder is but one penalty. Freedom corrected the slavery violation.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 7:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH,
“It may be for you - but I have no problem whatsoever discussing my faith without ever mentioning whatever I *don’t* believe. You’re the one in this conversation that doesn’t seem to be able to discuss your beliefs without making the basic tenets that someone else believes into something “wrong”….or “childish” as you say.”
When that is the difference between the two positions, it is difficult to discuss it without mentioning it. It is a conundrum.
“When I said,
“If the atheists had wanted to put up a display that truly acknowledged the “reason” behind celebrating the winter solstice…”,
and you say,
“I’d say the display that was put up summed that up pretty well”
…then you’re admitting that the “reason” the atheists chose to celebrate the winter solstice was to denigrate the other celebrations (since that’s what it did). Nice.”
So the atheists aren’t allowed to put up a display that sums up there beliefs? You seem to be saying that the atheists should not say anything if it involves saying someone else is wrong. Funny how that doesn’t stop you.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 7:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Disagreeing with something is different from denying someone else their “rights”. Or, maybe I should ask, which rights were you denying someone else? Remember, the conversation is about what atheists/anti-theists believe - on it’s own merit not about what others believe that you might think is “childish”. It’s about how changing your belief in “childish ideas” to non-belief changed your life - hopefully for the better.”
I didn’t explain myself very well.
What I meant was that I found, after realizing I was an atheist, that some positions I had held before, such as being against gay marriage, I no longer had any justification for. I had to re-think a lot of things and weigh them on their own merits, not on what the bible said. I consider that an improvement.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 7:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson,
“Pascal was hedging his bets by pretending to believe, so if God exists, he makes out okay after death.
Pascal was a smart guy, and his was a mental exercise not a physical or spiritual reality.
Believing in God is like hitting a home run.
One can’t fake it. Either one hits it or one doesn’t.”
The problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it completely ignores all the other possible gods that might exist. It isn’t just “Christian God or nothing”. What if Thor is the real god, or Vishnu, or Zeus? There are thousands of possible gods. Your home run gets mighty improbable when you don’t know which god is the real one.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 7:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson,
“How is “So is Left.” germane to the subject at hand?”
It is also the converse of right. And it is just as germane as saying wrong is the converse of right when you are discussing human rights. In other words, it’s just as irrelevant.
“If “Life is not a natural law” and “Liberty is not a natural law” why does Laws of Nature appear here?
“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Scientific laws are the laws that cannot be broken.”
Ah. you are using a different definition of “natural laws”. Got it. Still, other countries in the world do not agree.
“For breaking other laws there are penalties, death for murder is but one penalty. Freedom corrected the slavery violation.”
The violation that the framers of the Constitution incorporated into it? Remember that the founding fathers only allowed white, land-owning males to vote. I have a feeling they didn’t mean “natural laws” in the same way that you do. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 7:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “The problem with Pascal’s Wager is that it completely ignores all the other possible gods that might exist. It isn’t just “Christian God or nothing”. What if Thor is the real god, or Vishnu, or Zeus? There are thousands of possible gods. Your home run gets mighty improbable when you don’t know which god is the real one.”
The truth be told, if all that is required to establish a deity is “belief” or “faith”, then there is just as much validity in polytheism as their is monotheism. In fact, it may be even more reason to believe in the latter.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 7:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson: “Pascal was a smart guy, and his was a mental exercise not a physical or spiritual reality.”
Pascal may or may not have meant what he said, but I know people who believe in his reasoning and act on it.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 7:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson (in post 42): “Scientific laws are the laws that cannot be broken.”
What is meant by “Natural Law” is not the same as “scientific law.” And, while there are many references to “natural law”, the term is used by most in a totally abstract manner, and with absolutely effort to enumerate them for us. “Natural law” also has nothing to do with any “god” or “divinity.”
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 8:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH said to Scott” …then you’re admitting that the “reason” the atheists chose to celebrate the winter solstice was to denigrate the other celebrations (since that’s what it did). Nice.”
Scott totally misinterprets: “So the atheists aren’t allowed to put up a display that sums up there beliefs? You seem to be saying that the atheists should not say anything if it involves saying someone else is wrong.”
Scott: “Funny how that doesn’t stop you.”
How so? I know you don’t mean me personally, but did any of the other religious groups that were only allowed to place their displays in the Capitol ONLY because of the holidays that were being celebrated feel the need to denigrate anyone else in the process?
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 8:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No one was denigrated. The display simply summed up what atheists believe. The fact that certain members of certain religions perceive anything that is contrary to their beliefs to be an attack on those beliefs is their problem.
The problem is that simply stating what the atheists do not believe in, and why, is seen as “denigrating” by many theists, JMH apparently among them. That is why rational discourse cannot take place, because the atheist’s point of view is itself defined as “denigrating” to him.
The concept of equal time obviously means nothing to JMH if it means giving equal time to a point of view that he defines as denigrating.
Oh well.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 9:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres argues that “not only is every person equal to every other at birth, but remains so throughout their life, as a human being”.
But we all know that to be false. Just look around and observe.
All people being human beings is indisputable and not the same as saying all people are equal, because they all are different.
The older we become the more different we become: more distinguishable, more unique, more individualistic. There is no denying that experiences shape our lives. We do not all have the same experiences, so we are not equal.
But we all have the same rights, hence we are equal under the law. And, being equal under the law is what documents forming a government deal with.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 9:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres (Post # 49) You will find Laws of Nature, which is Natural Law, tied to Nature’s God in the following quote, “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
The signers to that quote put forth that Laws of Nature are the laws of Nature’s God in a practical non-abstract manner.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 9:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Funny how many of those signers were slave owners, and the government they formed only allowed white, land-owning males to take part in it.
Are you sure that what they meant by “laws of nature” is the same as what you think they meant?
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 9:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, (Post # 46) “It is also the converse of right.” Left is amusing but still off target when discussing a right.
Are you from other countries? If not, I am not concerned with what other countries in the world agree.
The beauty of our Constitution is that although the signers could not resolve their conflict between liberty and slavery, they installed the tool of amendment to resolve the conflict in the future. This has occurred.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 9:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott (Post # 45) It doesn’t matter in which god one’s true, unpretending faith is placed.
“Your home run gets mighty improbable when you don’t know which god is the real one.”
The home run scores for the one with the faith, making that god the real one for that one.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 10:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Are you from other countries? If not, I am not concerned with what other countries in the world agree.”
So this “natural law” only applies in the US. Gotcha.
“The beauty of our Constitution is that although the signers could not resolve their conflict between liberty and slavery, they installed the tool of amendment to resolve the conflict in the future. This has occurred.”
So what you’re saying is that we can change “natural laws” through the amendment process. Okaaay.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 10:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“It doesn’t matter in which god one’s true, unpretending faith is placed.
The home run scores for the one with the faith, making that god the real one for that one.”
You know, I don’t disagree with this. With the proviso that just because someone believes it to be true doesn’t make it so.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 10:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, Scott (Post # 54) They couldn’t get a consensus banning slavery because there were so many slave owners, but they could get a consensus regarding white land-owning males because that’s what they were.
Status-quo is easier to support than an ideal in conflict with what’s actually happening.
They relegated their ideal solution to future citizens. That made them come up with a solution to their knotty problem. The amendment process has been used to solve other problems. Pretty clever, I’d say, with the alternative being no Constitution.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 10:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No argument here, but where does the “natural law” fit in?
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 10:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott (Post # 58) Then there are a lot of church-going parishioners instead of me with whom you can discuss this. “With the proviso that just because someone believes it to be true doesn’t make it so.”
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 10:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Then there are a lot of church-going parishioners instead of me with whom you can discuss this.”
Sure. Bring ‘em on.
Posted April 13th, 2009 at 10:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, Natural law is laws of nature. This fellow, John Locke, wrote his “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” in which he reasoned how these laws applied. The signers used his writing as a reference. A modern reference is “The 5,000 Year Leap” by W. Cleon Skousen which explains how in 200 years and by 1976 American independence and free-enterprise economics had produced more results than the previous 5,000 years and details 28 great ideas that have changed the world.
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 1:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The atheist display to celebrate the winter solstice said, “Religion ….hardens hearts and enslaves minds”.
Scott says: “No one was denigrated. The display simply summed up what atheists believe. The fact that certain members of certain religions perceive anything that is contrary to their beliefs to be an attack on those beliefs is their problem.”
Just because you say that the above statement doesn’t denigrate religious people, doesn’t make it true for the targets of a prejudicial stereotype. And the fact that you say “it’s their problem” kind of makes me wonder if “loving your fellow man” includes any empathy. Doesn’t sound like it. Oh well.
You still haven’t explained what the same statement has to do with celebrating the winter solstice. Remember, the only reason ANY of the displays were allowed in the Capitol was because of the holidays that were being celebrated. The atheist display was ostensibly celebrating the winter solstice. We don’t have to imagine what the ACLU would have done if either the Jewish Menorah or the Christian Nativity had been accompanied by a bible verse about sodomy, or the Papal announcement condemning abortion.
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 1:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott says: “What I meant was that I found, after realizing I was an atheist, that some positions I had held before, such as being against gay marriage, I no longer had any justification for. I had to re-think a lot of things and weigh them on their own merits, not on what the bible said. I consider that an improvement”
OK…everyone has a right to feel “improved”, but that still doesn’t explain why you think changing your opinion about gay marriage makes you a better person than you were when you did not accept gay marriage (and consequently thinking that you are a better person than those who do not accept gay marriage?)
It’s not exactly a case where gay marriage is more in line with any “natural law” - considering the human species reproduces heterosexually. You could certainly make a case that bi-sexuality and even multiple partners do occur in nature, but since you’re talking about “marriage”, you’re talking about same sex, monogamous, mating for life, right? Is there a “natural law” for the human species that supports that type of non-reproductive exclusive relationship as a general rule?
By supporting gay marriage are you saying that we can change “natural laws” through legislation?
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 4:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson: “RLaitres argues that “not only is every person equal to every other at birth, but remains so throughout their life, as a human being”.
“But we all know that to be false. Just look around and observe.”
So, unable to accept the dignity of man, as man, Henderson now changes his approach by basing his judgment on “external” things, as judged by physical observation of his surroundings. Seems to me that such does not leave any room for humanity dignity.
In the above discussion, he also posits that the physical laws of nature are the same as Natural Law, and that those are the same as God’s law. That is quite a leap and, if accepted, then it also deprives the individual of any type of “free will”, which by inference then also negates any type of personal responsibility for any or all of his/her actions; i.e. a purely mechanistic view of man. Then, there not being any personal responsibility (it being impossible as everything that happens being pre-determined by “law”) it is impossible under any type of “law”, physical, natural or man-made, to hold any individual accountable for anything. Any attempt to do so would, by the very attempt, violate the very laws which Henderson claims to believe in, Natural Law, and what he term “God’s” law.
JMH: “By supporting gay marriage are you saying that we can change “natural laws” through legislation?”
Again, the same arguments that apply against Henederson’s position, would apply to JMH’s. If he claims that phyical law is the same as Natural Law, and “God’s law” then gay’s or gayness would not be possible. Ergo, the issue of “gay marriage” could not possibly arise. But, both do. Therefore and prima facie, that negates the claim they make that the physical laws of nature, Natural Law, and what they term “God’s law”, are one and the same.
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 4:16 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH: “It’s not exactly a case where gay marriage is more in line with any “natural law” - considering the human species reproduces heterosexually. You could certainly make a case that bi-sexuality and even multiple partners do occur in nature, but since you’re talking about “marriage”, you’re talking about same sex, monogamous, mating for life, right? Is there a “natural law” for the human species that supports that type of non-reproductive exclusive relationship as a general rule?”
That argument has been seen and presented many times before, and does not really hold much validity. What it does is reduce marriage to nothing more than the creation of “breeding pairs.” That is a purely physical and utilitarian view of individuals and “marriage” and actually provides no room whatever for the individual as it is established for the “good of others” i.e. society. Using sucn an argument, very simple and “natural logic” flows to the inevitable following conclusion. Those who cannot “reproduce”, choose not to reproduce, or who can no longer reproduce cannot be “married.” The first two would make any marriage an “invalid one” and in the latter case, the ability to “reproduce” having been lost, that would, by that very fact, invalidate any “marriage” that may have been previously valid.
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 5:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
This is a very interesting discussion, in particular as to the positions of Henderson and JMH on the various issues. Moving away from the particulars for a moment, and looking at how they would appear to want to establish “truth”, one may break it down in the follwing way:
I absolutely believe it to be untrue. Therefore it is absolutely untrue. (Absolutism)
I really believe it to be untrue. Therefore, it is really untrue.
I believe it to be untrue. Therefore is is untrue.
I believe it to be true. Therefore it is true.
I really believe it to be true. Therefore it is really true.
I absolutely believe it is true. Therefore it is absolutely true. (Absolutism)
There is a great deal wrong in this table, both laterally and vertically. Anyone interested in it, and who understand what the statements really represent, in all of its dimensions, can write a very long paper on the errors contained therein, statement by statement, and in toto. It is quite an enlightening exercise, and leads one to really question what it is one believes, and even if one should believe it.
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 6:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson,
“Scott, Natural law is laws of nature. This fellow, John Locke, wrote his “Essay Concerning Human Understanding” in which he reasoned how these laws applied. The signers used his writing as a reference. A modern reference is “The 5,000 Year Leap” by W. Cleon Skousen which explains how in 200 years and by 1976 American independence and free-enterprise economics had produced more results than the previous 5,000 years and details 28 great ideas that have changed the world.”
Did Locke explain how the laws of nature can be changed with Constitutional Amendments?
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 6:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The atheist display to celebrate the winter solstice said, “Religion ….hardens hearts and enslaves minds”.
Scott says: “No one was denigrated. The display simply summed up what atheists believe. The fact that certain members of certain religions perceive anything that is contrary to their beliefs to be an attack on those beliefs is their problem.”
Just because you say that the above statement doesn’t denigrate religious people, doesn’t make it true for the targets of a prejudicial stereotype. And the fact that you say “it’s their problem” kind of makes me wonder if “loving your fellow man” includes any empathy. Doesn’t sound like it. Oh well.
Of course, the nativity as a scene defining mans base nature and need for supernatural salvation couldn’t be defined as denigrating to anyone either, I suppose. Apparently that’s okay, though.
“You still haven’t explained what the same statement has to do with celebrating the winter solstice. Remember, the only reason ANY of the displays were allowed in the Capitol was because of the holidays that were being celebrated. The atheist display was ostensibly celebrating the winter solstice. We don’t have to imagine what the ACLU would have done if either the Jewish Menorah or the Christian Nativity had been accompanied by a bible verse about sodomy, or the Papal announcement condemning abortion.”
Yes, I did. Equal time, remember? That’s when the other displays were being put up. I never said it had anything to do with the solstice, and neither did the atheists. That is simply when the displays were put up.
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 6:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“OK…everyone has a right to feel “improved”, but that still doesn’t explain why you think changing your opinion about gay marriage makes you a better person than you were when you did not accept gay marriage (and consequently thinking that you are a better person than those who do not accept gay marriage?)”
You really like reading in things that aren’t there, don’t you? You don’t seem to need me to say anything. You just make up my arguments for me. You ask why I think becoming an atheist improved me, and when I give you a reason, you leap to the conclusion that I now think I’m better than those who think differently.
“It’s not exactly a case where gay marriage is more in line with any “natural law” - considering the human species reproduces heterosexually. You could certainly make a case that bi-sexuality and even multiple partners do occur in nature, but since you’re talking about “marriage”, you’re talking about same sex, monogamous, mating for life, right? Is there a “natural law” for the human species that supports that type of non-reproductive exclusive relationship as a general rule?
By supporting gay marriage are you saying that we can change “natural laws” through legislation?”
There are over 1,500 species in which homosexual behavior has been documented. Like it or not, it is part of the “natural law”.
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 9:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
My theory is that there are some unscrupulous professional writers who read comments posted by unsuspecting citizens in such threads as this and use those ideas as a basis for their articles. (You want proof - go to http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/04/14/christian_nation/.) Either that or most of these arguments about the U.S. being a Christian nation, natural laws, etc. have been postulated and refuted many times over. Note to sensitive readers prone to getting the vapors - the above link will take you to Salon.com.
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 11:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
JMH,
You may not have noticed that in those three posts, there are a total of eleven lines of text that I typed. How long does it take you to type eleven lines? Longer than seven minutes, apparently…
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 11:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott (Post # 69) Excerpts from Locke’s “Concerning Human Understanding”, Book 2 Of Ideas, Chapter XXI Of Power,
24. Liberty is freedom to execute what is willed.
52. The necessity of pursuing true happiness the foundation of liberty.
Locke did not address how laws of nature can be changed with Constitutional Amendments.
His essay preceded the Constitution and is searchable online. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke1/Essay_contents.html
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 12:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That was sarcasm, Henderson. I tend to do that. Some people consider it one of my more endearing qualities (at least I keep telling myself that!).
It doesn’t sound like you and the founding fathers are using “laws of nature” the same way. They certainly didn’t allow everyone in the colonies “the freedom to execute what is willed”. Only a select few, in fact. How does that square with what you call “the laws of nature”?
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 1:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Henderson: “Scott (Post # 69) Excerpts from Locke’s “Concerning Human Understanding”, Book 2 Of Ideas, Chapter XXI Of Power,
24. Liberty is freedom to execute what is willed.
52. The necessity of pursuing true happiness the foundation of liberty.
Locke did not address how laws of nature can be changed with Constitutional Amendments.”
Comment on (24)and (52) If we accept Locke’s definition of what constitutes liberty, and totally devoid of context (As Henderson would seem to suggest), then we may say that Locke was a pure hedonist (which he was not). Under such a scenario, anything I wish to do I may do, because it makes me happy, no matter what the cost to others.
Posted April 14th, 2009 at 2:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
For those interested in answers to their questions regarding John Locke’s essay “Concerning Human Understanding”, please go to: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke1/Essay_contents.html. Locke’s essay is a thoroughly exhaustive discussion of the subject and provides insight into the writing and editing of the Declaration of Independence and the framing of the Constitution.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.