Okay I see. I did manage to read your post before you deleted though, but I will not go over all the points since you have removed it, something that I think was a good thing![DELETED]
I wrote a long impassioned response here, but - forget about it. I'm here to discuss philosophy not sound off. — Wayfarer
You wrote:
I think this is actually a serious misunderstanding of the gravity of our modern situation. I think Alasdair MacIntyre was right in his book After Virtue that we, as a society, no longer have the tools and the means required to settle moral disputes.
You wrote:
You presuppose that the atheist, agnostic and so on so on (to adopt a Zizek line) can become friends, but this is already to presuppose the victory of the atheist. The real problem of course is that these are very different ways of life, which are mutually contradictory. When you say we can all get along, you are effectively doing harm to non-atheistic (I'm using atheist in a very loose sense here) ways of life. It is what the atheist always promotes - toleration - but toleration means the destruction of beliefs that disagree with his.
You wrote:
Conflicts will only intensify in the future and get worse and worse because these groups of people simply cannot live together and we have no means of conflict resolution at our disposal.
Indeed, and everyone ought to do them because if they don't, then the particular way of life that the ethics sustains becomes impossible.What makes ethical statements different to other statements is that they are supposedly what everyone ought do. — Banno
That is indeed possible, and that was the case in the past. However, one would hope that we have reached sufficient enlightenment to realize that all religions strive to reach after truth, even if some may reach higher than others.Agustino's Hindu, Muslim and Catholic might agree in their condemnation of the atheist, but once the atheist is gone that agreement will break as they take to each other. — Banno
We need to define our terms here. In my mind "coercion" is the use of physical force, applied with the permission of the law, to enforce moral standards. I am against that kind of coercion. Morality must be freely chosen.A fascist accepts that fascists may use coercion; Islamists accept that muslims can use coercion; but liberal ethics holds that my freedom ends at the tip of your nose. — Banno
But liberalism is a problem, not a solution. Liberalism seems to presuppose that my freedom can be conceived independently from yours. Each individual is seen as an atom, separate but relating with the others. Whereas I think the reality is that people are more like links in a chain, we're intimately related one with the other, such that my freedom must always be conceived also in terms of your freedom. That is why you say:OF course there are liberals who coerce; that's a problem. But the proper liberal response is to protest and reject coercion in the name of liberalism. — Banno
This is the profound mistake. My freedom cannot end at the tip of your nose because we are so intimately related that what you do can limit my freedom. For example, take abortion. The liberal argues that the woman should be able to choose what she does with her body - in this case whether she has sex and whether she chooses to keep the baby or not. But this is not at all the case - because in reality her freedom to decide impacts both the baby's freedom (by killing him/her it is taken away) and also her partner (who may have wanted to keep the baby). Thus it is not at all clear that "my freedom ends at the tip of your nose". It may be possible that what is going on inside your nose affects me, and limits my freedom - and you OUGHT to take this into account, even if you ultimately have to decide. If you become a totalitarian now and say "it's none of your business, it's my decision, bla bla" you have oppressed me. If you refuse to take into account other people who may be affected by your actions on account of your freedom, then you have oppressed. And most self-styled liberals today do exactly this. And you have done so under the magic of an illusion (a false conception of freedom).but liberal ethics holds that my freedom ends at the tip of your nose. — Banno
I don't think so. I think quite the contrary, the liberal framework intensifies conflict by putting a rug over it and covering it up under a set of assumptions (such as the conception of freedom) which does not reflect reality. It is nothing but magic.A liberal framework is the only option I am aware of that allows detente. — Banno
A rational moral framework. Rational discourse.What tools and means would those be - that we once had but no longer do? — creativesoul
Yes, I've witnessed this too, but the religious people who did that came on the losing end.To quite the contrary, I'm reporting upon what I've witnessed and/or actively been a part of myself. — creativesoul
They are. If you cannot see the blindingly obvious thing that the ways of life of religious people are different, then there's not much I can do.Religions are not at all equivalent to a way of life. — creativesoul
Okay, so if I maintain that abortion is immoral and you maintain that it's not, how are we going to get along when we as a society have to act one way or the other? :sGetting along doesn't necessitate the destruction of any belief other than those which make it impossible to get along. There are people who claim to be from every religion that harbor those. — creativesoul
A spiritual person cannot be a democrat. That would be a contradiction in terms — Agustino
The problem with saying Trump lies is that the media is nit picking. For example, they say he lied about Mexico paying for the wall. No he didn't. He just changed from saying Mexico will pay to Mexico will reimburse the US for it. So what? His intention remains the same, at least as he voices it, that Mexico will pay. That's not lying in my mind. Lying would be to be like "Nah, Mexico ain't gonna pay anymore, it will be all on us!" — Agustino
And I'm sorry to say, but I think JornDoe has you pretty well nailed. It's only that I do detect an element of actual philosophical insight, that causes me to bother persisting with you. — Wayfarer
A vomit of insults - sometimes one needs to vomit to get the poison out. Feel better now? ;):D Agustino, for some reason I picture you as some combination of opportunist, evolution-denier, anti-vaxxer, geocentrist, young Earth creationist, flat Earth'er, Moon-landing-denier, conspiracy theorist, proud supernaturalist, wannabe rebel, arrogant troll, misogynist, non-empathetic mental barbarian, with imaginary friends in higher places. — jorndoe
I don't think it's a hang up at all. It's absolutely important. Democracy has in fact killed some of the most enlightened people who have ever lived. It's just a fact. That is also why Plato for example spoke so badly about democracy. In fact, most of the world's greatest thinkers in history have been opposed to democracy. Authority and control are absolutely essential, and there's nothing about fascism here. Fascism is the imposition of morality by physical force, I'm not talking about that kind of illegitimate authority. I'm rather talking about the kind of authority that would exist in a constitutional monarchy.This is where I think you tend towards fascism. You have a real hang-up about authority and control. — Wayfarer
The abortion issue is absolutely important. Because the "tradition of liberalism" gives the wrong answer to it - and we see it in practice. People who are pro abortion argue based on the arguments of liberalism. That is a problem. Nobody can endorse liberalism while not taking this into account.Banno raises the 'tradition of liberalism', and you answer 'what about abortion?' Who is talking about 'having abortions'? What has that got to do with the discussion? — Wayfarer
Yes, it is basic to democracy, but I have already said I don't have much of a high opinion about democracy. So you should start out by telling me why I should reconsider democracy first of all. To tell me that "principled opposition" is basic to democracy is irrelevant granted that I don't consider democracy a valid system of government.The idea of 'principled opposition' is basic to democracy, yet you don't seem to understand it. — Wayfarer
Why do you think I'm saying "my way" is the only way? And what do you mean by "my way"?I agree with you that the decline of spiritual principles is the cause of moral and social decay. But you simply can't assert that your way - whatever that way is - is the only way. That's what you're saying here. — Wayfarer
I will look through that list. But to be honest, just by skimming through, it looks quite small for a politician.Trump demonstrably tells untruths, all the time - sometimes outright lies, other times distortions or half-truths, and other times falsehoods out of ignorance. This is documented. The media is not 'nit-picking' - the list of those lies is here, and these have been exhaustively fact-checked by large teams of people. — Wayfarer
I disagree about this as of now.he fact that Trump lies more than Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Richard Nixon, or any other US President or Presidential candidate. This is a rolled-gold, 100% solid, verifiable and indisputable fact, and to doubt it is to either be deceived or to be party to it. It's all there black and white, read the list. — Wayfarer
I never claimed they're engaged in a conspiracy. Oh no, that would be far too absurd. They're doing it unconsciously - they're driven by an ideological agenda that they have internalised, and they see the world through its lens. How have they internalised it? By living in a society governed by the values that Hollywood promotes. Now anything that is threatening to their ideology, they perceive as dangerous, and seek to destroy. They cannot see the world straight. That is the problem.I know that CNN, NY Times and Washington Post have their own biases and blinkers on, but they have teams of journalists working on this material, and if you believe they're all engaged in a conspiracy, then really I do think that your mind has been stolen by Internet memes. — Wayfarer
I am not a Republican. My support for Trump is above the support for the Republican Party. It is a party full of cronies and profiteering monkeys, I would not support them. I may support individual people from within the Republican Party, but not the party as such. So I am absolutely happy when I see Trump hammering away at the Republican leadership. That is exactly what I think should be done.You also must understand, with Trump it is not 'conservative vs liberal or 'republican vs democrat'. There are many Republicans and conservatives, who think that Trump has hijacked their party, who are deeply furious with his lies and lack of principle. There are formal groups called "Republicans Against Trump'. By all means, be conservative, support the Republican Party, but you need to understand that Trump hates the Republican party. He routinely belittles and derides its leadership, trashes its policies and undermines its ability to get its legislation passed. And this is what you're defending. — Wayfarer
Well, to begin with, there are other non-democratic systems that are not tyrannical. Tyranny means irrational authority. But a constitutional monarchy for example would be a rational form of authority, and therefore good. I much agree with Plato - society should be ruled by philosopher kings.Democracy is the least worst option. It often totally sucks, but how is the alternative NOT some form of tyranny? The only thing that is between Trump and martial law, are the democratic institutions and the press. — Wayfarer
Well, sorry to tell you but are you now suggesting that I am:And I'm sorry to say, but I think JornDoe has you pretty well nailed. — Wayfarer
That is an outright lie.anti-vaxxer, geocentrist, young Earth creationist, flat Earth'er, Moon-landing-denier — jorndoe
Yes he made a tiny statement in answer to a question: "Are you for invading Iraq?" which he answered "Yeah, I guess so". That's not a lie. Give me a break. He never totally endorsed the war. As far as I'm concerned, he was still one of the first people to start opposing it. Anyone can make such a statement at first. He answered a casual question casually.JAN. 21 “I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.)
Yes, he said a falsehood, but it's not a lie. He thought it's an all-time record, and he was wrong. No big deal.JAN. 21 “A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.)
Reportedly he said this in November and he was pushing for an investigation on it. I agree that this is a lie.JAN. 23 “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There's no evidence of illegal voting.)
Hyperbole and figure of speech. Truth is, it was a massive crowd. Not "biggest ever", but quite big.JAN. 25 “Now, the audience was the biggest ever. But this crowd was massive. Look how far back it goes. This crowd was massive.” (Official aerial photos show Obama's 2009 inauguration was much more heavily attended.)
Trump never said this, it was some of his associates which did.JAN. 25 “Take a look at the Pew reports (which show voter fraud.)” (The report never mentioned voter fraud.)
They didn't show actual voter fraud, but they showed it's very possible to commit voter fraud. So again, not a complete lie. There's quite a bit of truth in there.Neither study Mr. Spicer apparently referred to supports Mr. Trump’s claim.
The first study was conducted in 2014 by professors at Old Dominion University and discussed on Monkey Cage, a blog hosted by The Washington Post. Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, the researchers found that 14 percent of noncitizens who responded to the survey in 2008 and 2010 said they were registered to vote.
The problem is that the study relied on flawed data and was roundly criticized by political scientists who said that a more careful examination of the data revealed no evidence that noncitizens had voted in recent elections.
The second study, conducted in 2012 by the Pew Center on the States, found that 24 million voter registrations were no longer valid or “significantly inaccurate”; that more than 1.8 million dead people were still listed on the voter rolls; and that almost three million were registered in multiple states, probably because they had moved from one state to another.
JAN. 25 “You had millions of people that now aren't insured anymore.” (The real number is less than 1 million, according to the Urban Institute.)
We also found that 3.9 million people are now
covered through the state and federal marketplace—the socalled
insurance exchanges—and less than 1 million people
who previously had individual-market insurance became uninsured
during the period in question
Doesn't sound like a lie to me.Using this estimate, our findings imply that roughly 2.6 million people would have reported that their plan would no longer be offered due to noncompliance with the ACA. Another 6 percent reported that their plan was cancelled for other reasons, and 75.4 percent reported that they did not receive a notice of cancellation (figure 1).
One of my friends also told me "you should come with me to XXX place, they have the best steak ever there!" -> is he a liar now, because there's some place in the world where there's better steak?! Of course not, I understand what he means by that. Same with Trump.Now, the audience was the biggest ever.
This summary of Plato's position from Wikipedia sounds EXACTLY like a description of our current society today.Oligarchy then degenerates into democracy where freedom is the supreme good but freedom is also slavery. In democracy, the lower class grows bigger and bigger. The poor become the winners. People are free to do what they want and live how they want. People can even break the law if they so choose. This appears to be very similar to anarchy.
Plato uses the "democratic man" to represent democracy. The democratic man is the son of the oligarchic man. Unlike his father, the democratic man is consumed with unnecessary desires. Plato describes necessary desires as desires that we have out of instinct or desires that we have in order to survive. Unnecessary desires are desires we can teach ourselves to resist such as the desire for riches. The democratic man takes great interest in all the things he can buy with his money. He does whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. His life has no order or priority.
I'm rather talking about the kind of authority that would exist in a constitutional monarchy. — Agustino
Because you don't understand or respect the issue of 'principled dissent'. In your view, there can only be one true way. That is mirrored in all your comments about authority, democracy and spirituality - there can only be one way. Tell me if I'm wrong.Why do you think I'm saying "my way" is the only way? And what do you mean by "my way"? — Agustino
The abortion issue is absolutely important. Because the "tradition of liberalism" gives the wrong answer to it - and we see it in practice. People who are pro abortion argue based on the arguments of liberalism. That is a problem. Nobody can endorse liberalism while not taking this into account. — Agustino
I will look through that list [of Trump's lies]. But to be honest, just by skimming through, it looks quite small for a politician. — Agustino
[the media] driven by an ideological agenda that they have internalised, and they see the world through its lens. — Agustino
I am absolutely happy when I see Trump hammering away at the Republican leadership. That is exactly what I think should be done. — Agustino
This summary of Plato's position from Wikipedia... — Agustino
A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader) or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.
Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, it is possible for the people to give that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.
In my mind "coercion" is the use of physical force, applied with the permission of the law, to enforce moral standards. — Agustino
This is the profound mistake. My freedom cannot end at the tip of your nose because we are so intimately related that what you do can limit my freedom. — Agustino
Let's be clear that "My freedom ends at the tip of your nose" is an injunction, not an observation. — Banno
Article IV – Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.
Why so? If you think I'm a reactionary, then democrats are also reactionaries - they've taken us back to Ancient Greece! But of course, I'd make no such claim, because today's democracy is different than Greek democracy, just as today's constitutional monarchy would be different than yesterday's constitutional monarchy.Right - so you might be reactionary, rather than fascist. — Wayfarer
I know what you'll do here. You'll ask me for examples from today's world, I won't be able to give any, and then you'll claim that therefore democracy is the only real possibility. The problem with this argument is that of course since democracy is the dominating system it will make it seem like it is the only real alternative. That's what always is the case with political systems - when one system dominates, it seems like the only real alternative (that's part of the condition it needs to meet in order to dominate and not be replaced). Furthermore, a proposed better system will always be different than the "real" options currently existing by default.But, what are real alternatives to democracies? Theocracies, or monarchies? Any examples of those? — Wayfarer
No, none of the two. I said constitutional monarchy - Tehran is a theocracy, and Saudi is an absolute monarchy. There's differences between those three systems of government. Labelling non-democratic people as fascist is of course an attempt to deny other alternatives and affirm democracy as the only "real" possibility, but that's precisely what we should be investigating.You're thinking - what - Tehran? Saudi Arabia? — Wayfarer
In what way though? I think there's generally multiple ways to find out the answer to a technical problem - such as how tall is a building - but I don't think you're intending to refer to this.In your view, there can only be one true way. — Wayfarer
Ah, so it's just about authority, democracy and spirituality. Well with regards to democracy, I feel that it is you who thinks that democracy is the only "real" way, whereas I'm willing to take into consideration other ways. There isn't only "one way" in politics, but there can be a way which is better than the others - some of the time, not in all matters though.That is mirrored in all your comments about authority, democracy and spirituality - there can only be one way. — Wayfarer
I think people are allowed to dissent (speak out against something) provided they do this in a reasonable manner and without the use of violence. They should be respected for that.Because you don't understand or respect the issue of 'principled dissent' — Wayfarer
I wouldn't say principled dissent is the core principle of liberalism. Liberalism is the over-arching political philosophy of today that wants to claim that it is the only legitimate way, which is a problem. That's why the most "liberalist" nation, the US, has so frequently invaded other parts of the world - in order to bring liberation, since only liberation is legitimate. Of course, this has been just a coverup for imposing their own way of life on other people, and depriving them of any actual freedom.'Liberalism' is an over-arching political philosophy which allows for principled dissent. You give no indication that you understand what this means. — Wayfarer
Well I am interested in the facts, my problem with many of those lies is that they're not factual and they're misinterpreted and twisted around. You keep talking as if Trump was my ideal President, and of course he's not, in fact I made it clear from long ago that I support Trump only as a way to destroy the system.Nonsense. There is nothing else remotely close. But it doesn't matter to you, because you're not actually interested in facts; you like Trump, because you like how he makes you feel. — Wayfarer
I don't think it's this. Rather many of his actions are good. Attacking the media, attacking the Republican Party, bringing back the notion of protecting heritage and not taking down the statues, encouraging respect of law and order, including the sovereignty of a country, and so on so forth. This is true even if his intentions are wrong.He projects what you interpret as authority and control — Wayfarer
I never said you're incapable and I'm capable. The sentence you quoted was simply justification for why the media is biased. It's not because there is a massive conspiracy (as you suggested in our previous exchange that I would believe). But rather because:And you're not? You think I'm not capable of detecting the bias and agenda of the Washington Post, and somehow, you are? — Wayfarer
[the media] driven by an ideological agenda that they have internalised, and they see the world through its lens. — Agustino
Yes, in many cases this is true.But, he's not 'hammering away' because he has anything better to offer. — Wayfarer
I think he actually does have some principles, maybe not consciously, but he has some ingrained in him. Why did he jump up to protest against the taking down of the statues? It wasn't politically expedient for him to do so, was it? Quite the contrary, the wind is blowing in the opposite direction. But he stood up to speak against it. This suggests to me that there are some other drives inside of him. The ego is important, but the ego can be taken over by such principles, because, for example, he'll want to think about himself as the big someone who stops these thugs from destroying American heritage.He has no principles and no grasp of politics. — Wayfarer
Sure, but I have been saying this for a very long time. And I've been very badly criticised because of it. How dare I say that we as a society really value "pussy-grabbing" and the like? How dare I say Trump really represents the majority as they are, not as they'd like to pretend to be?A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader) or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.
Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, it is possible for the people to give that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.
Sure.Oppression is not being obliged to avoid coercing others. — Banno
I think it's a fact that all are free to choose, rather you might mean that their freedom to choose should be protected.If we agree, as you say, that morality must be freely chosen, then we need social injunctions such that all are free to so choose. — Banno
Ah, it would be great if in practice freedom was so limited! But this is often not taken into account, often quite the contrary, coercing me is taken to be your freedom. You must be aware that what is deemed to be one's freedom is very often exactly that which harms another. For example, pro-choice people view it as the woman's freedom to do what she wants with her body, but this is precisely that which harms the baby.My freedom is limited in that I ought, as far as possible, not subject you to coercion. — Banno
The term was selected by the Oxford Dictionary as 2016 Word of the Year.
The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” — Banno
But, what are real alternatives to democracies? Theocracies, or monarchies? Any examples of those?
— Wayfarer
I know what you'll do here. — Agustino
Well with regards to democracy, I feel that it is you who thinks that democracy is the only "real" way, whereas I'm willing to take into consideration other ways. — Agustino
With regards to spirituality, there are multiple ways and paths (represented by the multiple religions). So each way or path is useful as far as it goes. But there is one way which reaches farther than the others. — Agustino
Why did he jump up to protest against the taking down of the statues? I — Agustino
Democracy is not the opportunity to suggest the system, it's the opportunity to suggest someone to be in charge of particular functions within an already pre-established system. This difference is very important to understand.Democracy is not 'a system'. Democracy is the opportunity to suggest 'a system'. You still don't get that. — Wayfarer
I did say very clearly constitutional monarchy as an example. How am I not saying what they are? What would you want me to tell you that is missing?Without saying what they are. — Wayfarer
I do think Christianity - of which I'm a member - is the spiritual path that reaches the farthest from those that I know, yes. It would be absolutely silly if I didn't think so - otherwise what would I be doing being a Christian? But this isn't to say that other spiritual paths aren't also valuable.Which is yours, right? — Wayfarer
How do you know that he hasn't got a clue what they mean? On what do you base this assertion?Because he hasn't got an f*ing clue what they mean, but that it would appeal to the racists and nazis that support him. — Wayfarer
Furthermore, how many racists and neo-nazis are there? Let's say 50,000 in the whole of the US. Would anyone bother to appeal to 50,000 people for political support if they are a (smart) opportunist looking to win elections while risking alienating millions?! 63 million people voted for Donald Trump
I did say very clearly constitutional monarchy as an example. — Agustino
I do think Christianity - of which I'm a member - is the spiritual path that reaches the farthest from those that I know, yes. It would be absolutely silly if I didn't think so - otherwise what would I be doing being a Christian? But this isn't to say that other spiritual paths aren't also valuable. — Agustino
How do you know that he hasn't got a clue what they mean? On what do you base this assertion? — Agustino
Hmm well you say good luck with that, but until now you were saying that I made no suggestions, while in truth I had made them. So why is it suddenly that you don't want to talk about them anymore?Good luck with that. — Wayfarer
It doesn't pertain to the essence of democracy to enable principled opposition. Constitutional monarchy can also enable principled opposition.The point is that democracy enables principled opposition. — Wayfarer
This is not at all true. If democracy isn't appropriate, it doesn't follow that authoritarianism (or tyranny) is the answer. This makes it very difficult to argue with you because you're effectively giving me false alternatives - either democracy, or Nazis (or some dictatorial/authoritarian equivalent of them). That's not at all the case.When you say that democracy ought to be abolished, and that it is impossible to be 'spiritual and democratic', then what you're recommending is some form of authoritarianism, where divergence of views is not tolerated. — Wayfarer
You do realise this is ALL speculation. So you're going to invent whether Trump has a clue or not about the statues, and then you're going to attack his comments based on that. Sorry, that's actually post-truth.The fact that Trump is notoriously clueless, doesn't read anything, doesn't remember anything. They have to his official papers with his name so he bothers reading them. — Wayfarer
?? I did respond to it.I presented a list of more than a thousand falsehoods, spoken by Trump, published and on the record, and you couldn't even be bothered to respond to it. — Wayfarer
No I didn't. I've read through the list and I've analysed a few of the so-called lies myself. Not all that are listed there are actually lies. I hope you realise that. Just because a journalist calls them lies, and says so and so about them, doesn't mean they're actually lies. You have to listen to or read the original sources and make up your own mind about them. Yes, some of them are no doubt lies, but others, probably more than 50% aren't.You just waved it away. — Wayfarer
Conflicts will only intensify in the future and get worse and worse because these groups of people simply cannot live together and we have no means of conflict resolution at our disposal.
Indeed, living together in the so-called modern Western society is being defeated and humiliated for a religious person.
A Hindu and a Christian have more in common, and indeed can be friends, much better than a Christian and an atheist. There is after all not such a big divide between the Hindu and the Christian. The divide is superficial - different doctrines here and there, different theologies, and so on so forth. But fundamentally the Christian and the Hindu agree on the means of living in a community. We agree about the importance of respecting traditions, respecting authority, respecting one's family, sexual morality, how people should dress and so on so forth. There is a deep agreement that there exists a spiritual realm which is more important hierarchically than this material realm.
However, with the atheist, this is very different. The atheist cannot comprehend for example how sex has a spiritual meaning, and thus the atheist has a completely different understanding of sex. This understanding of it translates into his behaviour - and how he interprets the behaviours of others. We cannot have both his behaviour and my behaviour in society because they are mutually opposed. Indeed, if his behaviour is accepted, then mine is rejected. And I cannot allow that to happen. For example, he will interpret me teaching my daughter that it is immoral to have an abortion as oppression of women. Neither can the atheist allow his behaviour to be rejected. He cannot allow me to have my moral standard, because if I do, and I am successful, there is no place for his way of life, for his way of life will disappear since people will shun what is now viewed as immoral behaviour. Thus conflict is inevitable.
As I said, I used those classifications symbolically.As I read through the above, I know that much of what is said about 'the atheist' quite simply isn't true. — creativesoul
No, I don't value this.the pursuit of one's own happiness — creativesoul
Yes, I think these are quite important.if you value freedom, liberty, self-direction — creativesoul
On my property and using my tools and my money? I do.then you must consider who has the right and/or authority to tell a woman what to do with her own body... — creativesoul
I oppose abortion, and any woman interested to have it is free to have it with whoever agrees to it, but the government has no right to take my money and use it to fund abortions. Nor, if I am a doctor, does the government have any right to force me to give abortions to women if I don't want to. Both those would infringe my liberty and would be unacceptable.I say the woman, and in my saying that I honor both views, whereas if one opposes abortion, s/he is not honoring both views. Rather, s/he is forcing their own religious beliefs onto another. — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.