Posted on 10/17/2003 4:04:27 PM PDT by TXLibertarian
Excerpted from a longer op-ed. Author discusses the danger of legal proselytizing by a few firebrand secularists. Worth a read, IMHO.
What Atheists Want
By Chris Mooney
....
Unfortunately, in my experience, the U.S. atheist and secularist communities contain a number of activists who are inclined to be combative and in some cases feel positively zestful about offending the religious. Madalyn Murray O'Hair, easily America's most famous atheist firebrand, wasn't dubbed "the most hated woman in America" for nothing. Despite her landmark 1963 Supreme Court victory in a case concerning the constitutionality of school prayer, O'Hair's pugilistic and insulting public persona hurt atheists a great deal in the long run. A head-on attack on the pledge seems to epitomize the confrontational O'Hair strategy.
....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I can say that Hitler's actions conflict with my morality in all places and all times. As for being "wrong", that depends on your standard, and your standard depends on the values you choose the reasoning you apply. If your reasoning is faulty, then you might say the morality is not valid. However, values may merely be a matter of taste. Hitler valued above all things the vision of the "racially pure" German hero. From that starting point, his morality was destined to conflict with mine even without the illogic of is reasoning.
I would hardly say that Pol Pot or Stalin lived "fruitful lives."
They lived into old age freely enacting their values and choices to a greater extent than about any other person who ever lived. How would you measure success?
Be assured of that - justice escapes no one
Sounds like the justice you speak of cannot be observed or verified. Surely you understand why some might be skeptical about such a claim.
"All" aspects? What can that possibly mean? "All" is a big, big word. Do you mean my god has infinite ice cream cones? Infinite hatred? Infinite animal lust? Infinitely long fingernails? If even any ONE of those things I'd have to say that your notion of my god makes no sense. There is no physical quantity that is infinite anymore than there is any general person that is no person in particular.
You must have been reading Marshall McLuhan with all that talk of linear thought. Mosaically speaking, God does not exist within time or space since He created them. God sees all things from a non-linear perspective.
Infinite power, wisdom, love, time, etc.
That is called special pleading, a logical fallacy. You want an exception for your god. I say that the Invisible Pink Unicorn lives extra-dimensional in a place without time. She created your god on a whim as a child to keep around, who in turn created this universe and the time scale we know. When his playtime is over, god's toy will be dismantled and put back in the toybox. Prove me wrong.
Basically, that's what you just said to me sounded like.
What does that mean? In my case, simply, if God exists and wants me to worship him (silly notion) he knows my address and can ping me directly.
Beavas and I were quoting the Notebooks of Lazarus Long earlier, so I think I will throw out my favorite quote on the subject from there.
The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.
Note here that Heinlein was not denying the existence of God, it is more of a dig at the organized religions and the people that run them.
How does that saying go? The first priest was the first con-man who met the first chump.
I won't quite go that far, but I was tickled pink by a t-shirt I saw a few weeks ago that said, God is too big to fit into any one religion.
So you don't really mean "all" aspects? Now your use of "etc." implies a common property amoung the four words you mentioned that would allow me to complete the list. What is that common property? Instead of "etc." can you complete the list? How do you define "infinite"? How do you quantify love? To you, is there such a thing as half infinite love, and would that be less than infinite love?
God is described in the Bible as having infinite understanding. Various synonyms are also used when describing him, such as eternal (infinite time). The rest of his infinite properties I have heard from relgious people, made up I guess, to further put your god on a pedestal.
How do you define "infinite"?
How many times to I have to explain infinite this week? In common lay usage, it can mean just something really, really big or without end. In correct mathematical usage it is the set of numbers where for every number N there exists (N+1).
To you, is there such a thing as half infinite love, and would that be less than infinite love?
Any subset of infinity is infinite. That is one of the definitions of infinity.
This manifests itself in most prayers having at least 4 out of the following 5:
I apologize for stating that incorrectly. We're talking about calculations with infinity, that is what do you get when you ask for a subset of infinity, such as all odd numbers or, in this case, half. The resulting set of numbers will always be infinite.
I'm not privy to all your conversations. I'm pretty cool, but I'm not omniscient. Sounds like I'm getting confused with god again.
In common lay usage, it can mean just something really, really big or without end. In correct mathematical usage it is the set of numbers where for every number N there exists (N+1).
I asked for your definition, as you used it in YOUR definition of god. In particular, what do you mean by "infinite love".
Any subset of infinity is infinite. That is one of the definitions of infinity.
Okay, so when you write of "infinite love" or "infinite power" or "infinite time", by "infinite" you are referring to some set that can be put into a 1-to-1 correspondence with some proper subset of itself? Seems like you are on the road to making sense by following set theory, but I don't see how you can follow that road for long.
First, take the set "god's love". To make sense, "god's love" would have to be a collection of definite, distinguishable objects of our intellect to be conceived as a whole. However, the objects of "god's love" don't seem to be distinguishable as I can't even imagine what a single element would be. For the same reason, how can the objects be definite when I can't even imagine what you might throw at me for me to decide if it is a part of "god's love" or not.
Second, you surely know that not all 1-to-1 correspondences are similar. Take the smallest infinite set, the set of integers. Is god's love similar to that? Well, if you were then to map god's love to the real numbers (of course not being distinguishable or definite, a mapping is impossible), then you'd find plenty (infinite) unmapped real numbers. If god's love can be put into a 1-to-1 correspondence to the real numbers, then you'd find a "bigger" set in the set of all subsets of real numbers. If a god's importance can be characterized by the "size" of infinite power he has, then you'd find there is no supreme god since the size of the set of all subsets of any infinite set is always a "bigger" set.
So, even if you really intended to use "infinite" to mean something like "greatest possible", you can't succeed.
Finally, "infinite time", with infinite used in the mathematical sense, simply does not make any sense. Mathematics is the science of measurement with all physical units abstracted out. Time has physical units. Infinite and infinitessimal quantities in the physical world have been theorized but never observed. To observe one would be strange since it is impossible to conceive of an infinite observation.
Even in set theories, the notion of always being able to increment a set size must be axiomized. There is no observation or reductio ad absurdum argument that makes it true. The concept develops once the observable world has been abstracted out.
{1, 2, 3} is a finite subset of the infinite series of integers.
What he should have said is that "infinite" can be defined as the size of any set that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with some (not every) proper subset of itself.
Thus, the set of all real numbers can be put into 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of all real numbers between 0 and 1. The set of all rational numbers can be put into a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of all integers. The set of all integers can be put into a 1-to-1 correspondence with the set of all positive integers. And so on.
Obviously the notion of "infinite quantities" is an entirely different animal from the notion of "quantities" that we actually observe in the real world. Many people seem not to realize this and, despite the conceptual impossibility, attempt in language to concretize "infinite quantities" as some extension of observable quantities.
God or no, rights come from the observation that other human beings can be peacefully persuaded not to act against your interests.
A fire acts against your interests, you must put it out or succumb. A ferocious animal acts against your interests, you must kill it or run away. The weather acts against your interests, you must build shelter to force it out. A person acts against your interests, you can also kill it or run away; however, with humans you have a 3rd, often easier route--pursuade him to stop.
We needn't get all mystical about rights. Let's try to keep our feet on the ground folks. Important things can be grounded, rational, and even simple.
If god can, why can't matter? Or for that matter, if matter can't, what makes you think god can? Are you sure you're not just making this stuff up?
Your definition. I have no god.
This is not the case. Many human beings cannot be "peacefully persuaded" not to act against your best interests. Plenty of political despots cannot be persuaded of this.
So if other human beings cannot or do not "acknowledge" your best interests, does that mean you have no rights? After all, a despot could easily argue that it is not in the "best interests" of a segment of the population to own property.
I am afraid that your argument, like most secular attempts to grasp the concept of the eternal rights of man, fails because you rely solely on a finite concept - the acknowledgement by mankind of someone else's interests - as your premise of fundamental rights.
The Christian view of human rights does not rest on the prevailing attitudes of mankind. It rests on the word of God, which says that human beings have the right to life (among other things) in all times, everywhere, in all countries and in all cultures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.