₦airaland Forum

CrazyMan: I wouldn't use the word imaginary because I believe that there's a being up there.

If evil and wickness exist in the world, then you must know that good also exist.

If evil spirits possesses people and they get delivered by children of God, then God himself also exist.

If satanists believe that a human can astral project into the realm of the spirit, then I believe that God can also show his children a glimpse of paradise.

If you believe that magic, witches, wizards and all forms or dark arts are real, then you must also believe that the opposite side of that coin also exist.

If people comit murder, r a p e, fraud etc, and make you believe it was the devil that made them do it, then you must know that there's someone up there who wants you to do good.

If you claim that there's no God, and that religious fanatics are just creating an imaginative being in their minds where they can find solitude, then how do you explain the creation of the universe...it didn't just appear...it was created by someone.

I can go on and on to prove to you that someone actually exist up there, its just up to you to believe it or not.

Sad truth, evil is subjective. It's a mental construct only reasonable to beings with intelligence like you and me.

Obviously I don't think spirits etc exist.

Saying some intelligence created the universe actually complicates stuff, what created the complex being in the first place? What is god to you anyways?

And despite you being crazy, this thread does not have the usual astronomical levels of #insult many other threads have.

ifeness: we have not reached the level of asking what ones are the positive and negative extra terrestrial. The God of the bible is clearly an evil one because he aided killings,blood sacrifices and terrible deeds in the bible. I can't say much on that because it will get Christians confused. The fight is between the malevolent and benevolent forces in the universe.

Only a few people on the planet have got the access to the truth or knowledge. That is why they are called secret societies. Knowledge is power and secret knowledge is more power.

You've read chariots of the gods, etc? When I was younger, I was convinced. A few years passed then so much disappoint.

I do like me some rockets but the way you term this stuff comes across a bit like crazy talk (no offense). Most religions have some inner core where all the 'answers' are, only high priests are allowed etc. Not sure why man needs to create these things, but there's probably a biological reason. Enter secret societies.

fellis: I am probably wrong but I think what you are trying to say is that each person's opinion of how to move the world forward would ultimately differ (and might even be destructive) even if the intentions are good.

I also hate tea. Can't remember the last time I drank that stuff.

I am saying that, among other things. We get to ze problem of intentions. Very tricky of course. I'm not even sure how to put it in words, but more often than not, people do not have bad intentions. Then again, that doesn't mean that just because their intentions were 'good' they get a free pass. But how to judge properly then? Take the death penalty, I believe that is some illogical stuff, mostly because very rarely would get someone who would rather be a murderer, or thief etc. For the most part, they didn't have a choice. In a sense, society has failed whenever a crime is committed. But all this is my leftist agenda, not too important.

I like this as well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Continuing ze ramble....
Their motivations were similar. The solutions arrived at to solve these problems? Obviously different. But the main point is INFJ's are driven to solve social issues rather strongly. They are often considered to be strongly emphatic, recognizing feelings in mr x which he himself was not aware of. One famous MBTI* dude says that if you want to know how happy the staff at a company are, ask an INFJ if there's any among them. I'll continue this ramble later...


*for my eager readers who begged incessantly for me to grace them with my omniscience, all maybe 0 of you, his name is Kieresy, he sort of moded MBTI, his system is simpler and highly regarded as well

^^^^
That's too derp to take on for me. Some might actually not believe deep down, but want it to be true so bad they just do the close your ears and scream LALALALALALALA thing. Generally religion just keeps them going, else they'd lose hope and consider the task (life in general) to be too much for them to handle. Why trouble them, especially if I'm not sure I can provide an alternative for them. So complicate.....
Who am I to think I know what they think anyhoo.....

Is this the /b/ of NL? If you can answer that, you should feel bad for even knowing what /b/ is...
That said, let's take on, semi-randomly, the MBTI types of Hitler, Gandhi, Bin Laden, Tolstoy and Jesus.
Quite a list, imo all these were actually the same type, INFJ. Incidentally the rarest type. But wait you say, how could Hitler and Gandhi be the same type?
They were both motivated by similar things actually, the condition of their fellow man. It disturbed them greatly. One was an unbalanced individual, unbalanced any type can become an $insult, no type is free of that. But even balanced INFJ can get really pissed when s/he sees the human condition and believes people are not doing something to better their condition. Gandhi supposedly thought of us as being little more than apes after a stint in an SA prison for instance.

Anyways Hitler was really off the wire, and he redirected a lot of misplaced hate at various other groups he perceived as being the cause of the problems he perceived, rather irrationally. At his core he was very emotional (his speeches might have been practiced, but he really believed what he was saying). He wasn't in it to make some sort of material profit. Consider Bin Laden as well, why would a reasonably good looking guy, well mannered, educated?(not sure, but I suppose so), a bit cultured, rich, prospect of a reasonably good future in comfortable Saudi suddenly decide he should spend his life in Afghanistan and in other $hit holes (sorry Afghanistan) fighting the white devil? Well, he really believed his $hit. He felt a little too strongly about the issue, which is the condition of the downtrodden in that part of the world, that he couldn't just let it be. He blamed it on the USA, the rest is history...

I shall continue the ramble later.
I actually hate tea (you have to boil water and stuff, seriously just to drink something? Highly inefficient to me) but I'm gonna have me some juice, then quit procrastinating hopefully

Not an expert, but I think all he's trying to say is time as is known in this universe need not exist in another. Whatever passes for time there need not work like time here. For instance, everything could have happened at once (crazy talk? Maybe, but science is plenty crazy even here, massless particles don't move through time, and we ourselves are trvelling at c at the moment, just most of it through time, crazy talk). Assuming time worked similarly in another universe is actually taking liberties, and maybe illogical. After all no one knows what's there, and we probably will never know. It is another universe after all, with nothing to do with our existence in a practical sense(except maybe host the big bang). It would probably have its own rules. The difficulty of explaining what's there is the reason why gods chased from the rocks, rivers, trees, skies, galaxy by science now seem to be hiding there.

fellis: hi. I read your reply on that thread.
I wanted to make these comments:
1. You were right, some people cannot live happy lives without reassurance that there will be an eternity where the good ones will be rewarded and the evil ones will get their deserved punishment. Maybe atheists should cool it a bit with the evangelism because of people like them.
2. A lot of people will cease to be moral without religion. Another reason why picking faults from religion is probably a bad idea.
3. Anything that defies logic is not necessarily wrong. It might be that the logical explanation has not yet been found.
(I know, there are 3 and not 2)

These are tricky, there's probably no 'right' or 'wrong' solutions here imo.

1.I agree, but some would say that by people not accepting that someone 'bad' will be punished after death, they do not do enough in this world to correct said persons wrongs

2. Scary thought. Others would argue though that fear of hell etc (what's it called officially again?) Is just a placebo, the real problem still remains, people who think it's fine to be complete #insult. Eventually they might find a way to justify their abhorrent behavior, they might even use religion. Perhaps an unintended insidious effect

3. Very true

One and two, it might be that your approach is the most practical.

Personally though I am definitely not for evangelical atheism, or evangelical anything else for that matter. I doubt many atheists are as well. Especially if religion provides a spark in someone's life (and said person is harmless), it would be downright nefarious to try and take it way. Many atheists are just concerned with essentially humanistic issues.

Many others are just here for the banter, maybe some trolling

Are there nice things here, like tea? I've been good.

Also, what are we discussing here? Just how awesome we are? Bets on when I'll next comb my hair?

For us all? Ooooohhhh are we having some tea and cabin as well?

I nearly used those vouchers as well, can't remember what stopped me. If it's ten tries before the telco blocks you off, you should give clues as to what one digit is (just 2) then leave another digit completely empty, that way things remain interesting..

Like 326523635xy

X is either 3 or 7. Guess the last digit...

What's this about? If I may ask

It's been hypothesized that the young are better at math and similar activities than the older not just because they more easily create new connections in their brain, but also because older people have more memories to contend with and more worries (family etc) to distract them. Not to mention in settings like concentration camps, incarcerated scientists deliver at a better pace because they have less distractions. Of course your brain needs blood to function as well. Looking at all this it's easy to see how distractions and blood loss to the john would impact productivity.

truthislight: do the chinese look to miracles?

Do they have loose moral code?

I dont think bill gate is a croller.

You dont seem to understand the effect of sex and blood on the brain as it relate to brain/mental activities/brain development especially when making research.

When next you are doing that sex thing and your wife and your child knocks on the door start talking to your child and see what happens to your erect manhood.

That it drops for using your brains is because their is the need for the blood that was pumping your manhood to move to the brain.

The quantum of blood in your body is just enough to power one of two things at a time, up or down.

So, when a young man dwell in a life style that makes his blood to be on the down side most of the time it is a disservice to the developing brain.

Dont 4get that practice makes perfect.

So, when he trains the down side the more it is at the detriment of the developing brain.

So, a young man with sound moral and operate at that level during his formative years will maximise his mental development and ability to take in knowledge and think. = well developed brain for creativity.

His blood will always be upstairs where he needs it the most while developing.

This deserved a 'like'

I'm guessing hung like a mule.

Atheism is not some sort of cultural system that encourages people to be this or that.

Your concern is with people is that value objectivity more than being emotionally supportive. Doesn't mean they don't care. That actually has very little to do with atheism itself anyways. This is also just your personal opinion, many others are happy being critical and/or living with critical minded people, and in fact are very productive.

Not to mention look at the population differences. Even if there is a higher ratio of this type among atheists, there are lot more theists so you'll likely encounter variety more frequently among them (not so sure if my math is correct though). But many religious are like that too, and are actually proud of it. There a lot of atheists that value emotional harmony as well.

I actually lol'd. Someone ought to flog the pilot. He sounds like of one of those religious nuts that has people drinking kool aid on those remote farms/communities.

The pilot was also presido/father/owner of their lives, though he never actually bothered to prove this, or even tell any of them himself. Legally, since he owned them he could do whatever he wanted with their lives. Or some similar excuse.

Wait for it...

Black americans are physically bigger and stronger than us african black men. Recently, for a few hundred years they were slaves.

European jews, not the spanish the ones from germany etc, is it azhe#2(?ny?, I forget, I'll just call them azjews, have the highest average iq's in the world. Through a lot of their recent history they were not allowed to own land, farm etc. This because those were respectable, profitable occupations reserved for big boi europeans. Azjews had to learn other trades, many of them involving mathematics, thinking etc

Think of natural selection over the years. Just sayin...

To put it another way good pleb @anony, imo, faith indicates there is a chance of failure. You could use faith when you are not sure of the results. My trust in nature is not faith-like as nature doesn't fail.

Random: This relates to why objective is better than subjective when possible ie when dealing with other sentients as with regards to rights etc. And no, things like eugenics are not the objectively better option. You are correct when you reason that I think we do need to set initial parameters when it comes to morality and I think human rights (like the un's defined) are these. Many feel strongly about this (rightfully), and that's part of the reason you get heat on the morality issue. In fact, they don't think they should have to point it out to others, human rights as the basis for ethical codes should be self-evident. If they have to point it out to x it sort of implies that x would be some sort of mass murderer were it not for indoctrination (just like those who are religious because they fear hell fire *smh*). So what if indoctrination required x fly a plane into a building, he'll just do it? I really, really, don't think I should have anything to do with anyone who thinks remotely like that. Just how arrogant could one be to think that their faith-based religious beliefs are more important than human lives or rights? Many times said beliefs are not even theirs, as they are simply blindly doing what they've been programmed to do by their indoctrination

That said, it's important to keep some perspective and not get carried away despite how distasteful the alternatives being presented may be. Frequently 'rightful' people have committed the most heinous crimes.

Your concerns are legit as to "who gave us these rights?", "Are we sure they are the best option?" Etc. But to many, the answers should be glaringly obvious.

This is just random btw

lagerwhenindoubt: My Lord Beric.
on bent knees do I bid his grace to deem this humble commoner worthy of consideration as a noble Knight of the Crown.

The brotherhood could always use more swords. For now our quest is simple, deliver the king's justice to the outlaw the mountain plus any other lannister scum and mr anony as he's a bit too vocal about this false god yahweh. we'll also have tea parties around 4-ish central african time. Eventually our task would be spread the doctrine of the one true god (other than the other whose name shall not be spoken of course), R'hllor, to all the heathens here. We'll sacrifice all non believers to the red god (with fire), so you have to be fine with that..

The night is dark, and full of terror oh ye unbelievers

Mr_Anony: No matter how your dictionary defines faith, it must tell us that faith is belief and trust. What your belief and trust is based on is entirely another matter and this is where reason and logic comes in to help us justify our faith. I think I made the difference between true faith and blind faith very clear.
Basically whenever you test and expect a result, you have shown faith.

Except, like I've already stated, nature does not work on faith. It doesn't need me around to test results. It doesn't even test results. With regards to nature I don't have faith, I know. No belief or trust; it is. Different things.

Mr_Anony: Lol, for starters, there are certain constants such as the speed of light, gravity, nuclear forces e.t.c. about 30 such constants fine tuned to such precision that if any one of them is altered, life will not exist (but anyway, that's a topic for another day)

The physical constants are interesting. Figuring how they came about will be interesting. But regardless, as nature is understood atm, uncertainty is involved. And that affects just about every deterministic action. For practical reasons though we can ignore its effects on the macroscopic.

What is this you accept determinism? You also accept 'souls'?

Mr_Anony: Lol, morality is based on the idea that a human being has certain rights by default and not the other way round. It is from the violation of these human rights that we have an evil and hence a good.

We'll get to that...

Mr_Anony: What you are neglecting is to show how an unconscious unintelligent entity brings forth a conscious intelligent being. There is a very big gap in logic there which you are willfully ignoring.

Never have I ignored that, ever. I think there is no such thing as freewill strictly speaking, we are mechanical, that alone says a lot. Simple to complex. Evolution, evidence everywhere. What we don't have evidence for is sky tyrant or any other deity, even the benevolent ones. It can all be explained without an ID, in fact an ID complicates it. You think complex just showed up before simple?

Mr_Anony: Lol no, last I checked, cybercookies don't taste good. Just lift the ban.

I'll let this go as you clearly don't want to discuss it without quoting the bible. Apologies if I seemed pushy about it, really, it's not my intention to trouble you.

We'll get around to the other post. And, in relation to that, I have understood your positions clearly (except for the need to quote the bible) since like forever, it's you who doesn't get mine (and many others in your debates with regards to morality) I think. It is a valid concern, but your solution is not the best imo. Yes, I know, how can I know what 'best' is if following my world view. We'll get to that...

Sociobiologists assert god is the ultimate alpha male. maybe a thread about wethear we still require alpha-males would be interesting..
i dont require a god, so nothing really, except maybe practicing what they claim he preaches

but d real reason i'm posting
FIGHT!!!FIGHT!!!FIGHT!!!FIGHT!!!FIGHT!!!

@mr anony, This summarizes my view as to how to prudently go about setting up a moral code. There is an infitite chain here. I was looking for something else, but this is useful. Also, moving the other discussion here as well, so tired atm lol.

"Foundationalism
Perhaps the chain begins with a belief that is justified, but which is not justified by another belief. Such beliefs are called basic beliefs. In this solution, which is called foundationalism, all beliefs are justified by basic beliefs. Foundationalism seeks to escape the regress argument by claiming that there are some beliefs for which it is improper to ask for a justification. (See also a priori.) This would be a claim that some things (basic beliefs) are true in and of themselves.

Foundationalism is the belief that a chain of justification begins with a belief that is justified, but which is not justified by another belief. Thus, a belief is justified if and only if:

it is a basic/foundational belief, or
it is justified by a basic belief
it is justified by a chain of beliefs that is ultimately justified by a basic belief or beliefs.

Foundationalism can be compared to a building. Ordinary individual beliefs occupy the upper stories of the building; basic, or foundational beliefs are down in the basement, in the foundation of the building, holding everything else up. In a similar way, individual beliefs, say about economics or ethics, rest on more basic beliefs, say about the nature of human beings; and those rest on still more basic beliefs, say about the mind; and in the end the entire system rests on a set of basic beliefs which are not justified by other beliefs."


Too tired, I'll explain why despite my view of the nature of freewill we still have to respect goals, etc. But I'm pretty sure you know why and are probably just trolling me.. Later

Mr_Anony: lol


Your misconception is that faith is believing something that doesn't exist, that is not faith, that is madness. Faith is simply being convinced of something i.e. Putting your trust in certain information and accepting it to be true.
True faith exists with reason. There must be logical reasons to hold a position as true, if not, it simply isn't true. Blind faith is faith that something is true in spite of reason that it must be false.
e.g I have faith that 2+2=4 anyone saying 2+2=3 simply has blind faith.

Now "simple to complex" is very different from "disorder to order". To claim that nature randomly churns out stuff, you must have to claim that the laws of nature themselves are entirely random and this is not true. I hold that nature is not random and order can only come from order.



First of all, I'd like to remind you that this thread is about human rights not religion/moral codes...yes I know they are related but they are different.
What is interesting is how you start by saying that you don't hold that newer=better but then go on to make a case that assumes that more evolved = more advanced. Funny enough, you have failed to recognize the fact that if evolution is truly mindless and random, then the concept of better is flawed as any reference to value immediately infers order and/or purpose.


I'm sorry bruv, as much as you may not like it but I cannot discuss God without reference to His Word.

One: my dictionary has faith meaning more or else both those things. Putting your confidence or trust in a person or thing is one. The other definitions, like 5 of them, all have to do with belief that is not based on proof, or theology. Non of this definitions suffice as with regards to the elements. If I jump out of a 10 story window I will fall down and likely die. That doesn't require faith, it will happen regardless of what I believe or put my trust in. Requires no sentience to take place, unlike faith

What parts of nature do you hold are not random? For most of it, this is false. Quite a complex thing to tackle now though, and I don't have your energy atm (seriously, where do you get this energy from, its been days of bombardment - as far as morality issue - with your allies deserting you yet you still resist)

Two: we derailed a while back, that's very bad I know, and the topic is important. But this is critical to the issue, where do we get the moral right to declare that the unspeakable is wrong? Who or what determines what is egregious?

I wasn't talking about evolution, I was talking about moral codes and religion. Concepts that require sentience. Goals have been set, instinctive or not, via freewill or determination, irrelevant. We are sentient and intellegent, thus we can reflect, pla, etc, unlike evolution.

Three: not even if I give you cookies?

Mr_Anony: when I ask for something that repeatedly and consistently brings something and your best answer is something unpredictable, you have not provided a true cause you may as well say nothing causes it, it just randomly happens

Wow, nature says survive and we can choose to defy nature and refuse to survive. Does nature saying survive mean anything?
This shows that our rationality by which we can choose to defy our instincts cannot possibly be a product of nature else it must obey nature's command.


From what your stance is saying, the only way it can make logical sense was if freewill and reason and all-what-not are indeed an illusion.

First: no, just that we do not know how it fully works yet.

Two: you choose to defy nature? No.. Let's just combo 2 and 3. I think there's no such thing as freewill. I fail to see how in any way that gives us the right to be pr1cks (excuse the french)

Mr_Anony: Oh you do, Faith is simply something you know and trust to be true. You have faith in the environment, you believe it exists, (if you prefer to say you 'know' it exists it is all the same to me) you believe it to be responsible for making you the you are even though you cannot logically link it's nature to your nature i.e. how can a mindless entity create a mind? (That is what blind-faith is; holding a position in spite of better reason not to).


You have made two wrong assumptions namely: that "old=false/new=true" and that "everything starts from man"


The solution I propose to you is God............I cannot expand on Him properly without referencing His Word. It is like asking me to tell you about physics without quoting any physicists or referring to any physics textbooks.
Rejecting information from a particular source without even hearing what that source has to say but rather choosing to ridicule the source based on stereotypes is what is called willful ignorance.

Fancy meeting you here again! When did we last meet? Its been so long, like 2 mins ago

One: I don't. It exists, it can't be ignored. Requires no faith.

How can a mindless entity create a mind? Surely you jest, this folly /lordmode. How does simple create complex? It's everywhere in nature. And it's been randomly churning out this processes billions of times per second for billions of years.


Two: no I don't. Religion, moral codes are memetic and they evolve. There are various aspects of ancient greece's moral code that are better than christianity's imo, even though christianity is newer (xtianity is better in many ways too, calm down). With what we know now, and enormous hindsight, I'd say we are in a better condition now to define a moral code than sheperds from antiquity.

Tthree: stop it , bad mr anony, stop that.. You can make your case without having to quote your bible and you know this. I don't need to quote newton or einstein to explain their theories. Define your axioms and take it from there

Mr_Anony: You are forcing the theory to fit into your argument when you say "sometimes subconscious". It is either the cause or it isn't.


How does a "should" fit in with the concept of a purposelessly driven instinct? When you say something should happen, you immediately inferred purpose.


Again you contradict yourself, if the environment that causes an event is truly purposeless, then it can neither be good nor bad therefore you cannot truly talk about bad behaviour or [b]i[/b]diots. It is just people performing actions.


lol, bite me.

One: No I'm not. You do realize there are many actions you take subconsciously that have some biological purpose you are not aware of. Many of the emotional, subjective stuff falls in this category. You may come to be aware of your actions after you reflect on it, but triggers are subconscious.

It does cause it. Again, emotions and whatnot could fire (or misfire) during operation and cause unpredictable results.

Two: we do create a purpose, ourselves. Nature also imbues us (or most of us) with one: survive. Again so many play a part in actual operation

Three: if freewill really is an illusion, you are correct. Again, again, again, for practical reasons...

obadiah777: dont trip over yourself trying to sound intelligent with all that mumbo jumbo you regurgitated up there. you are either a heathen or you are not. its black or white. no shades of grey when it comes to God.

.....

obadiah777: sounds to me like yall are trying to sound and be more intelligent than you are with all these self aggrandizement pseudo-labels. whatever happened to 'just being a man who believes in God' and a 'heathen' ? what is it ? the name 'heathen' is not good enough for yall ?

As I've already stated, there are various types of people who believe in god(s). The world isn't made up of just christians, jew, muslims and skeptics. You do know that, I hope? I don't think all are as misguided as judeochristians/muslims

I don't mind being a heathen, apostate etc. Why should I? knock yourself out. I don't think you're a heathen, so why should I use the word?

Or, is this a joke?

obadiah777: what is judeochristian ? yall people kill me with all these stupid names

They aren't stupid, its about being precise. A lot of failure comes from miscommunication, two people saying the same thing end up fighting all the time, or a project fails etc. Anti-intellectuality is rather silly btw, for many other reasons. Judeochristian is popular term anyways. I could use abrahamic but that could include the bahai and others, who aren't as misguided imo. Ditto religious. It would be more accurate for me to say judeochristian and muslim though. This is all off topic

obadiah777: in the middle of the egg that would be yolk

I'll admit it's funny to me when I switch the word atheist with judeochristian

Mr_Anony: My aim wasn't to propose an alternative since you have outlawed the alternative I would have provided from your thread. I just wanted to make you examine your position and ask yourself some questions. It appears we have come to the point where you have recognized that logic has failed you so you have thrown up your hands in the air and declared your faith which sounds very much like the religious-blind-faith answer of "God did it" your answer in this case is "The Environment did it".

In a sense, the "Environment" is your god and you believe that it created you, gave you life. The funny part is that you also admit that your god has no mind, no senses, and no purpose......we have one word for that: Idol!

I don't have faith in the environment, it exists. Having no purpose isn't the end of the world. Acknowledging you can make one, hopefully with a group, one that could be 'positive', is a very powerful concept.

Basing this purpose on archaic constructs, well that leads to a lot more problems (despite sometimes good intentions). You fail to acknowledge @ kay's point, whatever you propose will be man made, intrinsically of not more value than anything we propose except maybe in the minds of some of the arbiters of our destiny (I term it that cause it sounds cool, don't you think): us. You wouldn't have any special 'truths' more valuable than the 'rights' we espouse. It will probably be worse actually.

Don't be disingenuous, you know you can describe it without having to quote the bible. Let it out, if you will good ser

Mr_Anony: Check my words red (I did it that way so as not to break the flow of your argument with continued quotation).

Ok, let's do this bit by bit shall we? You can pick out the bit we should focus on first and then we can face it.

Can't reply properly on phone atm. Decent arguments though I suspect you already know my positions. Let's attempt a reply..

First red
No, biologically the selfish gene, if you will, provides a sometimes subconscious, instinctive basis for altruism. Rationally altruism can always justified.

Second red
I've said this a few times, for practical reasons it should

Third red
Infamous determinism vs freewill. If we encourage harmful, bad behavior the odds of random people being eediotic increases. It follows that even determinists should not encourage bad behavior even if they think it was beyond the control of the perpetrator. Again, practical reasons

And I picked the name a long time ago instinctively (see instincts are valid) not using my usual name because NL is well, 9jarian. I never trusted d place actually, while googling soyinka positions on religion I saw some ppl defending him and was like wtf..
my real identity is lord beric dondarrion, lightning lord, come to impose the will of the one true god, R'hollor. Address me as my lord, two words, not m'lord, commoner

^^^
Why good sir, I think it's safe to say the internets is securely yours.

@mr anony, STORY STORY
I admit I've been waiting for you to propose your alternative, you've failed to bite . I have no problem with the environment having no purpose, you know that. I'm still not sure if freewill is an illusion, but as things stand now, there is a conscious effort by us to make up our own purpose. Biological need or not, for practical reasons, its irrelevant. We, not gods, have to come up with this purpose.

Religious men have built all sorts of voodoo to mystify the process and give the illusion of some sort esoteric, privileged knowledge, (for example, it came to the point where jews couldn't even speak the name of yahweh anymore, lol). They have failed spectacularly imo. Reason and the scientific method on the other hand, the proof is in the pudding. Your alternative probably relies on something spiritual. I don't mean to ignore spirituality, clearly some need it to function, but I think they fear the unknown a little too much and seriously underestimate humanity's potential. With regards to the judeochristian god I know eediots who'd pull stunts like the one di caprio pulled at the end of titanic for absolute strangers. In fact, that was what fully let me embrace atheism. How could gods be such callous bastards when normal humans could be so emphatic, capable of achieving so much? The problem of evil, again.

We make our purpose, we don't need spiritual mumbo jumbo and disingenuous pastors, etc pushing their petty agendas and poorly thought out solutions anymore. You could say man (or woman) has evolved. So what's your alternative?



Edited

Mr_Anony: You have not answered my question properly at all. I have not mentioned any religion neither have I necessarily asked for the source of our moral code.
I have asked, what is the justification for our "human rights"? You have not given an answer.

The first part of your question was 'who or what is responsible', again, the environment (this means us, shaped by nature/biology/elements etc).

The second part, I would have to say technically, nothing. But for practical purposes we have to abide by one or two codes as we have to deal with other individuals.

The rest of my post obviously addresses religion vs memes

Mr_Anony: You missed he whole point of my question. My question addresses the topic of this thread which is: "Should there be interference in other cultures when rights are involved?"
By your question, you have taken for granted that we have certain rights as human beings which would make such an interference justifiable.
Whenever you mention rights, you are in effect alluding to something of greater authority than yourself which bestows you with such priviledges hence rights.

My question now is "who or what is responsible for bestowing us with these rights and what gives such an entity the right to define for us what our human rights are?"

How did we come about these rights? If you say we evolved them, then these rights become meaningless because because nothing really justifies these rights, we may as well say we made them up and could have made up another bunch of rights.

According to evolution, a human being is no more important than a tree. From whence then come our "human rights"?

NOW TO RESPOND SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR RESPONSE:

You and Avicenna seem to say that we are in the process of building a global collective moral code, the question now arises, why should such a moral code be binding?

By what authority do we determine what is right and wrong and by what authority should someone else be subject to our right and wrong?

If we have agreed on a global moral code and one person breaks it, by what authority do we mete out punishment without it being a tyranny of the majority?

and also if you say the person is bound by his own agreement, then I'll have to ask by what authority did we globally agree that an agreement ought to be binding?



General catch all, mechanically speaking, the environment dictates the moral code. Moral codes are similar to evolution via natural selector. Do you agree?
I do not agree. If moral codes are subject to natural selection, then "survival of the fittest" ought to be the key indeed. It ought then to be the highest moral good for us to kill of the diseased and disabled amongst us. Especially since we have "evolved" a consciousness to know actually how evolution works. The most rational thing to do would be to kill of the weaker members of our species so that their genes have less chance of being passed on.......maybe we just haven't evolved to that level yet?



Are moral codes memetic? No they aren't

The question you ask is replied to in this post: the environment makes the moral code.

Natural selection does not imply the best survives, only that good enough survives. The world grows smaller, tenets of christianity, the ones that cannot survive in the larger one, are tossed aside. The world was flat, now it's round. The earth was the center of the universe, you could still say that depending on what model of the universe you use but you'd be abusing mathematics and common sense. Recently the catholic church officially adopted evolution as a fact (that took a while). Slavery was ok, now it's egregious. 50 years from now our descendants will wonder how the hell homosexuality was an issue.

Yahwweh had a family, waifu, kids, the works. He lost all of them sadly. Perhaps because the priests were having a hard time explaining how was it that powerful yahweh who was on their side allowed them to lose some skirmish or the other. Said priest, maybe fearing he would become some sacrifice to appease yahweh, came up with the idea that yahweh was on the side of all the rival factions, it was all his will in the grand scheme of things. He was testing their faith etc and would punish anyone eventually, even if not in this world, that tried to kill said priest. Priest is saved, the religion has evolved. It has now acquired a property (one god to explain things like loss) which aids it in it's quest for survival against other religions.

Christianity is judaism 2.0, and yes islam is 3.0, (they are forks actually). Islam lands with some qualities, especially those concerning apostates and unbelievers, that leave the rest of us cringing but have greatly aided it's success. As it clashes with the rest of the world though it will be forced to either adapt, die, or kill off it's opposition.

This all sounds like evolution to me. Religion strikes me as being a collection of memes (ie iirc what memes are, cultural units).


Edit: I am judeochristian religions as examples because of their popularity, don't take it personally