F&L Filosofie & Levensbeschouwing
Een plek om te discussiëren over filosofische vragen, filosofen, religieuze vraagstukken of religie en levensbeschouwing in het algemeen.
Dat lijkt me weer wel een goed idee. Vraag is dan wel, op welke leeftijd je moet beginnen met dat relativeren. Maar daar weten pedagogen vast wel een antwoord op.quote:Op dinsdag 14 augustus 2007 12:28 schreef Haushofer het volgende:
[..]
Ik doelde meer op de verschillende interpretaties ervan. Natuurlijk is daar niet 1 antwoord op te geven, maar het leert kinderen om verder te kijken dan alleen het starre " Jezus is de letterlijke zoon van God".
Onderschat nooit de kracht van domme mensen in grote groepen!
Der Irrsinn ist bei Einzelnen etwas Seltenes - aber bei Gruppen, Parteien, Völkern, Zeiten die Regel. (Friedrich Nietzsche)
Der Irrsinn ist bei Einzelnen etwas Seltenes - aber bei Gruppen, Parteien, Völkern, Zeiten die Regel. (Friedrich Nietzsche)
Waar haal je die waanzin vandaan? Nergens in de grondwet van de VS lees ik het woord God. De VS is een seculiere staat waarvan tenminste een van de grondleggers als leidend wordt beschouwd binnen deverlichting en - detail - vermoedelijk atheist was.quote:Op dinsdag 14 augustus 2007 21:52 schreef Ali_Kannibali het volgende:
[..]
Dan klopt je informatie niet want de VS is gebouwd als christelijke natie en de grondwet op christelijke principes.
Sheesh...
Siamo Tutti Antifascisti!
Inderdaad. In "The pledge of Allegiance" werd bijvoorbeeld "In God We Trust" pas toegevoegd in 1954, toen The Knights of Colombus (een katholieke (voor Ali: een satanistische organisatie ) zwaar protesteerden tegen de toenmalige eed. Overigens is er veel meer bewijs dat de Founding Fathers Deïsten/atheïsten waren ipv Christenen (laat staan vrome protestanten).
) zwaar protesteerden tegen de toenmalige eed. Overigens is er veel meer bewijs dat de Founding Fathers Deïsten/atheïsten waren ipv Christenen (laat staan vrome protestanten).
A Principle of The Traditional American Philosophy
3. Unalienable Rights - From God
". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
The Principle
1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator.
The Only Moral Basis
2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable."
One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."
Right, Reason, and Capacity to Be Self-governing
3. For the security and enjoyment by Man of his Divinely created rights, it follows implicitly that Man is endowed by his Creator not only with the right to be self-governing but also with the capacity to reason and, therefore, with the capacity to be self-governing. This is implicit in the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, Man's unalienable rights would be of little or no use or benefit to him. Faith in Man--in his capacity to be self-governing--is thus related to faith in God as his Creator, as the giver of these unalienable rights and this capacity.
Rights--as Prohibitions Against Government
4. Certain specific rights of The Individual are protected in the original Constitution but this is by way of statements "in reverse"--by way of express prohibitions against government. The word "right" does not appear in the original instrument. This is because it was designed to express the grant by the people of specific, limited powers to the central government--created by them through this basic law--as well as certain specific limitations on its powers, and on the preexisting powers of the State governments, expressed as prohibitions of things forbidden. Every provision in it pertains to power.
The Constitution's first eight (Bill of Rights) amendments list certain rights of The Individual and prohibit the doing of certain things by the central, or Federal, government which, if done, would violate these rights. These amendments were intended by their Framers and Adopters merely to make express a few of the already-existing, implied prohibitions against the Federal government only--supplementing the prohibitions previously specified expressly in the original Constitution and supplementing and confirming its general, over-all, implied, prohibition as to all things concerning which it withheld power from this government. Merely confirming expressly some of the already-existing, implied prohibitions, these amendments did not create any new ones. They are, therefore, more properly referred to as a partial list of limitations--or a partial Bill of Prohibitions--as was indicated by Hamilton in The Federalist number 84. This hinges upon the uniquely American concepts stated in the Declaration of Independence: that Men, created of God, in turn create their governments and grant to them only "just" (limited) powers--primarily to make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights including, in part, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. As Hamilton stated, under the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, "the people surrender nothing;" instead, they merely delegate to government--to public servants as public trustees--limited powers and therefore, he added, "they have no need of particular reservations" (in a Bill of Rights). This is the basic reason why the Framing Convention omitted from the Constitution anything in the nature of a separate Bill of Rights, as being unnecessary.
An Endless List of Rights
5. To attempt to name all of these rights--starting with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence--would be to start an endless list which would add up to the whole of Man's Freedom (Freedom from Government-over-Man). They would add up to the entirety of Individual Liberty (Liberty against Government-over-Man). Innumerable rights of The Individual are embraced in the Ninth Amendment, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Here "Constitution" includes the amendments.) Some idea of how vast the list would be is indicated by just one general freedom which leads into almost all of Free Man's activities of daily living throughout life: freedom of choice. This term stands for the right to do--and equally not to do--this or that, as conscience, whim or judgement, taste or desire, of The Individual may prompt from moment to moment, day by day, for as long as life lasts; but always, of course, with due regard for the equal rights of others and for the just laws expressive of the above-mentioned "just powers" of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Spelled out in detail, this single freedom--freedom of choice--is almost all-embracing.
Right To Be Let Alone
6. In one sense, such freedom to choose involves Man's right to be let alone, which is possessed by The Individual in keeping with the Declaration and Constitution as against government: in enjoyment of his unalienable rights, while respecting the equal rights of others and just laws (as defined in Paragraph 5 above). This right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right of most prized by civilized men. This right is, of course, also possessed as against all other Individuals, all obligated to act strictly within the limits of their own equal rights. Consequently any infringement of any Individual's rights is precluded.
Rights Inviolable by Government or by Others
7. Neither government nor any Individuals--acting singly, or in groups, or in organizations--could possibly possess any "just power" (to use again the significant term of the Declaration) to violate any Individual's God-given, unalienable rights or the supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy--nor can it rightfully, or constitutionally, violate--Man's God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with Man's deserved enjoyment of any of these rights. No public official, nor all such officials combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can, to be sure, unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man's unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights of all Individuals, in last analysis, that the self-governing people--acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution--oppose any and all violators, whether public officials or usurpers, or others (par. 9 below).
Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations
8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.
An Offender's Just Punishment
9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.
It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.
The Conclusion
10. Man's unalienable rights are sacred for the same reason that they are unalienable--because of their Divine origin, according to the traditional American philosophy.
3. Unalienable Rights - From God
". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." (Declaration of Independence)
The Principle
1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that Man, The Individual, is endowed at birth with rights which are unalienable because given by his Creator.
The Only Moral Basis
2. This governmental philosophy is uniquely American. The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable."
One underlying consideration is that for every such right there is a correlative, inseparable duty--for every aspect of freedom there is a corresponding responsibility; so that it is always Right-Duty and Freedom-Responsibility, or Liberty-Responsibility. There is a duty, or responsibility, to God as the giver of these unalienable rights: a moral duty--to keep secure and use soundly these gifts, with due respect for the equal rights of others and for the right of Posterity to their just heritage of liberty. Since this moral duty cannot be surrendered, bartered, given away, abandoned, delegated or otherwise alienated, so is the inseparable right likewise unalienable. This concept of rights being unalienable is thus dependent upon belief in God as the giver. This indicates the basis and the soundness of Jefferson's statement (1796 letter to John Adams): "If ever the morals of a people could be made the basis of their own government it is our case . . ."
Right, Reason, and Capacity to Be Self-governing
3. For the security and enjoyment by Man of his Divinely created rights, it follows implicitly that Man is endowed by his Creator not only with the right to be self-governing but also with the capacity to reason and, therefore, with the capacity to be self-governing. This is implicit in the philosophy proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Otherwise, Man's unalienable rights would be of little or no use or benefit to him. Faith in Man--in his capacity to be self-governing--is thus related to faith in God as his Creator, as the giver of these unalienable rights and this capacity.
Rights--as Prohibitions Against Government
4. Certain specific rights of The Individual are protected in the original Constitution but this is by way of statements "in reverse"--by way of express prohibitions against government. The word "right" does not appear in the original instrument. This is because it was designed to express the grant by the people of specific, limited powers to the central government--created by them through this basic law--as well as certain specific limitations on its powers, and on the preexisting powers of the State governments, expressed as prohibitions of things forbidden. Every provision in it pertains to power.
The Constitution's first eight (Bill of Rights) amendments list certain rights of The Individual and prohibit the doing of certain things by the central, or Federal, government which, if done, would violate these rights. These amendments were intended by their Framers and Adopters merely to make express a few of the already-existing, implied prohibitions against the Federal government only--supplementing the prohibitions previously specified expressly in the original Constitution and supplementing and confirming its general, over-all, implied, prohibition as to all things concerning which it withheld power from this government. Merely confirming expressly some of the already-existing, implied prohibitions, these amendments did not create any new ones. They are, therefore, more properly referred to as a partial list of limitations--or a partial Bill of Prohibitions--as was indicated by Hamilton in The Federalist number 84. This hinges upon the uniquely American concepts stated in the Declaration of Independence: that Men, created of God, in turn create their governments and grant to them only "just" (limited) powers--primarily to make and keep secure their God-given, unalienable rights including, in part, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. As Hamilton stated, under the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, "the people surrender nothing;" instead, they merely delegate to government--to public servants as public trustees--limited powers and therefore, he added, "they have no need of particular reservations" (in a Bill of Rights). This is the basic reason why the Framing Convention omitted from the Constitution anything in the nature of a separate Bill of Rights, as being unnecessary.
An Endless List of Rights
5. To attempt to name all of these rights--starting with "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" mentioned in the Declaration of Independence--would be to start an endless list which would add up to the whole of Man's Freedom (Freedom from Government-over-Man). They would add up to the entirety of Individual Liberty (Liberty against Government-over-Man). Innumerable rights of The Individual are embraced in the Ninth Amendment, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (Here "Constitution" includes the amendments.) Some idea of how vast the list would be is indicated by just one general freedom which leads into almost all of Free Man's activities of daily living throughout life: freedom of choice. This term stands for the right to do--and equally not to do--this or that, as conscience, whim or judgement, taste or desire, of The Individual may prompt from moment to moment, day by day, for as long as life lasts; but always, of course, with due regard for the equal rights of others and for the just laws expressive of the above-mentioned "just powers" of government designed to help safeguard the equal rights of all Individuals. Spelled out in detail, this single freedom--freedom of choice--is almost all-embracing.
Right To Be Let Alone
6. In one sense, such freedom to choose involves Man's right to be let alone, which is possessed by The Individual in keeping with the Declaration and Constitution as against government: in enjoyment of his unalienable rights, while respecting the equal rights of others and just laws (as defined in Paragraph 5 above). This right to be let alone is the most comprehensive of rights and the right of most prized by civilized men. This right is, of course, also possessed as against all other Individuals, all obligated to act strictly within the limits of their own equal rights. Consequently any infringement of any Individual's rights is precluded.
Rights Inviolable by Government or by Others
7. Neither government nor any Individuals--acting singly, or in groups, or in organizations--could possibly possess any "just power" (to use again the significant term of the Declaration) to violate any Individual's God-given, unalienable rights or the supporting rights. No government can abolish or destroy--nor can it rightfully, or constitutionally, violate--Man's God-given rights. Government cannot justly interfere with Man's deserved enjoyment of any of these rights. No public official, nor all such officials combined, could possibly have any such power morally. Government can, to be sure, unjustly and unconstitutionally interfere by force with the deserved enjoyment of Man's unalienable rights. It is, however, completely powerless to abolish or destroy them. It is in defense of these rights of all Individuals, in last analysis, that the self-governing people--acting in accordance with, and in support of, the Constitution--oppose any and all violators, whether public officials or usurpers, or others (par. 9 below).
Each Individual Consents to Some Limitations
8. In creating governments as their tools, or instruments, and equally in continuing to maintain them--for the purpose primarily of making and keeping their unalienable rights--all Individuals composing the self-governing people impliedly and in effect consent to some degree of limitation of their freedom to exercise some of their rights. This does not involve the surrender, or the alienation, of any of these rights but only the partial, conditional and limited relinquishment of freedom to exercise a few of them and solely for the purpose of insuring the greater security and enjoyment of all of them; and, moreover, such relinquishment is always upon condition that public officials, as public servants and trustees, faithfully use the limited powers delegated to government strictly in keeping with their prescribed limits and with this limited purpose at all times. It was in this sense that George Washington, as President of the Framing Convention in September, 1787, wrote to the Congress of the Confederation--in transmitting to it, for consideration, the draft of the proposed Constitution: ". . . Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest." Here he meant merely conditional relinquishment of liberty of action in the exercise of certain aspects of unalienable rights--not the surrender of any unalienable rights, which would be impossible because a nullity, a void act.
An Offender's Just Punishment
9. Whenever Man violates either the equal rights of others or the above-mentioned just laws, he thereby forfeits his immunity in this regard; by his misconduct, he destroys the moral and legal basis for his immunity and opens the door to just reprisal against himself, by government. This means that any person, as such offender, may justly be punished by the people's proper instrumentality--the government, including the courts--under a sound system of equal justice under equal laws; that is, under Rule-by-Law (basically the people's fundamental law, the Constitution). Such punishment is justified morally because of the duty of all Individuals--in keeping with Individual Liberty-Responsibility--to cooperate, through their instrumentality, government, for the mutual protection of the unalienable rights of all Individuals. The offender is also justly answerable to the aggrieved Individual, acting properly through duly-established machinery of government, including courts, designed for the protection of the equal rights of all Individuals.
It is the offender's breach of the duty aspect of Individual Liberty-Responsibility which makes just, proper and necessary government's punitive action and deprives him of any moral basis for protest. By such breach he forfeits his moral claim to the inviolability of his rights and makes himself vulnerable to reprisal by the people, through government, in defense of their own unalienable rights. By this lack of self-discipline required by that duty, he invites and makes necessary his being disciplined by government.
The Conclusion
10. Man's unalienable rights are sacred for the same reason that they are unalienable--because of their Divine origin, according to the traditional American philosophy.
Ja en?quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 11:53 schreef Ali_Kannibali het volgende:[..]
Dat er later mensen waren die godsdienst in de samenleveing wilde brengen, betekent niet dat Amerika origineel op christelijke basis gebouwd werd.
[ Bericht 12% gewijzigd door The_stranger op 15-08-2007 12:31:46 ]
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe
C. Sagan
C. Sagan
tuurlijk wel joh, de Indianen zijn ook op christelijke manier "verplaatst"..quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 12:21 schreef The_stranger het volgende:
[..]
Ja en?
Dat er later mensen waren die godsdienst in de samenleveing wilde brengen, betekend niet dat Amerika origineel op christelijke basis gebouwd werd.
"Step into the light to see the darkness"
"If you talk to God you're religious. If God talks to you, you're psychotic."
"If you talk to God you're religious. If God talks to you, you're psychotic."
Mijns inziens zijn de indianen grotendeels verwijderd (vind verplaatst zo'n "belediging" voor die groep) vanwege geld en koloniale interesses. Dat ze godsdienst gebruiken maakt het slechts een stuk gereedschap, geen reden.quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 12:25 schreef locutus51 het volgende:
[..]
tuurlijk wel joh, de Indianen zijn ook op christelijke manier "verplaatst"..
Maar waar het eigenlijk om ging was dat de stichting van het moderne Amerika, beginnend met de onafhankelijkheidsverklaring geen religieuze ondertoon had. Dat dat later aangepast werd doet niet af aan het idee van de "founding fathers"
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe
C. Sagan
C. Sagan
Tuurlijk, dat snap ik ook, het was dan ook sarcastisch bedoelt.. in de vorm van dat alleen het zogenaamde goede door godsdienst kwam, en het slechte wordt niet over gepraat.quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 12:34 schreef The_stranger het volgende:
[..]
Mijns inziens zijn de indianen grotendeels verwijderd (vind verplaatst zo'n "belediging" voor die groep) vanwege geld en koloniale interesses. Dat ze godsdienst gebruiken maakt het slechts een stuk gereedschap, geen reden.
Maar waar het eigenlijk om ging was dat de stichting van het moderne Amerika, beginnend met de onafhankelijkheidsverklaring geen religieuze ondertoon had. Dat dat later aangepast werd doet niet af aan het idee van de "founding fathers"
"Step into the light to see the darkness"
"If you talk to God you're religious. If God talks to you, you're psychotic."
"If you talk to God you're religious. If God talks to you, you're psychotic."
Die christenen blijven onterechte vooruitgang claimen. We hebben het einde van het heelal gehad, de zgn christelijke staat in NL en nu weer de grondwet. Stelletje jatterts.
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Dacht eigenlijk al dat je het zo bedoelde, maar was niet helemaal duidelijk....quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 12:37 schreef locutus51 het volgende:
[..]
Tuurlijk, dat snap ik ook, het was dan ook sarcastisch bedoelt.. in de vorm van dat alleen het zogenaamde goede door godsdienst kwam, en het slechte wordt niet over gepraat.
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe
C. Sagan
C. Sagan
Die Charles Montesquieu van je kan wel de basis voor het rechtssysteem zijn, maar vind je ook niet dat de grondwet en om maar iets simpels te noemen, de 10 geboden, toch wel overeenkomsten hebben? Dan laat ik alle bijbelse vertellingen nog achterwege.quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 12:37 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
Die christenen blijven onterechte vooruitgang claimen. We hebben het einde van het heelal gehad, de zgn christelijke staat in NL en nu weer de grondwet. Stelletje jatterts.
In ieder geval ben ik ook geen christen for the record.
De juiste volgorde is, denk ik, als volgt: Evolutie van (het bewust zijn van) moraliteit -> vastleggen in 10 geboden -> vertaling naar grondwetquote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 12:45 schreef Fiama het volgende:
[..]
Die Charles Montesquieu van je kan wel de basis voor het rechtssysteem zijn, maar vind je ook niet dat de grondwet en om maar iets simpels te noemen, de 10 geboden, toch wel overeenkomsten hebben? Dan laat ik alle bijbelse vertellingen nog achterwege.
In ieder geval ben ik ook geen christen for the record.
Siamo Tutti Antifascisti!
Maar zijn die tien geboden wel religieus? Natuurlijk spelen ze een grote rol in veel religies in verschillende soorten, maar bestonden ze niet al voor het verhaal opegschreven/de gebeurtenis plaatsvond?quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 12:45 schreef Fiama het volgende:
[..]
Die Charles Montesquieu van je kan wel de basis voor het rechtssysteem zijn, maar vind je ook niet dat de grondwet en om maar iets simpels te noemen, de 10 geboden, toch wel overeenkomsten hebben? Dan laat ik alle bijbelse vertellingen nog achterwege.
In ieder geval ben ik ook geen christen for the record.
Mij maak je niet wijs dat de vroege Egyptenaren niet grotendeels zo leefden als wij als het op waarden en normen aankomt.
Ook daar werd stelen niet toegestaan, ook daar werd overspel niet gewaardeerd. Maar de tien geboden moesten nog in steen gebeiteld worden....
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe
C. Sagan
C. Sagan
Je moet de zaken wel in de goede volgorde zien. Er zijn universele menselijke waarden. Die komen (natuurlijk) terug in godsdiensten, maar de godsdiensten zijn niet de bron van die waarden.quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 12:45 schreef Fiama het volgende:
[..]
Die Charles Montesquieu van je kan wel de basis voor het rechtssysteem zijn, maar vind je ook niet dat de grondwet en om maar iets simpels te noemen, de 10 geboden, toch wel overeenkomsten hebben? Dan laat ik alle bijbelse vertellingen nog achterwege.
In ieder geval ben ik ook geen christen for the record.
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Eensch. Als onze beschaving een product is van het Christelijke geloof waarom weten we dan nu dat de aarde rond is? Dat soorten onstaan door evolutie? Dat het heelal (+/-)13.7 miljard jaar oud is? Dat homofilie niets te maken heeft met zondig leven? Dat vrouwen gelijkwaardig zijn aan mannen? Dat mystiek en openbaring geen bronnen van kennis zijn? Democratie? Liberalisme?quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 12:37 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
Die christenen blijven onterechte vooruitgang claimen. We hebben het einde van het heelal gehad, de zgn christelijke staat in NL en nu weer de grondwet. Stelletje jatterts.
Ik kan nog wel even doorgaan. Kortgezegd: als het christelijk geloof de basis zou zijn voor de richting die westerse beschaving in is geslagen, leefden we nog in de Middeleeuwen.
Siamo Tutti Antifascisti!
De gelovige zal beargumenteren dat god de bron van deze waarden is.quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 12:52 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
[..]
Je moet de zaken wel in de goede volgorde zien. Er zijn universele menselijke waarden. Die komen (natuurlijk) terug in godsdiensten, maar de godsdiensten zijn niet de bron van die waarden.
Siamo Tutti Antifascisti!
Geeft wel aan dat de religieuze propaganda machines op volle toeren gedraait hebben (en nog steeds), dat zelfs niet-christenen geloven dat we onze moderne maatschappij aan het christendom (of een andere religie) te danken hebben. En dan vragen sommige christenen zich af hoe het nou kan dat ik me onderdrukt voel.quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 13:00 schreef wijsneus het volgende:
[..]
Eensch. Als onze beschaving een product is van het Christelijke geloof waarom weten we dan nu dat de aarde rond is? Dat soorten onstaan door evolutie? Dat het heelal (+/-)13.7 miljard jaar oud is? Dat homofilie niets te maken heeft met zondig leven? Dat vrouwen gelijkwaardig zijn aan mannen? Dat mystiek en openbaring geen bronnen van kennis zijn? Democratie? Liberalisme?
Ik kan nog wel even doorgaan. Kortgezegd: als het christelijk geloof de basis zou zijn voor de richting die westerse beschaving in is geslagen, leefden we nog in de Middeleeuwen.
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Ik beargumenteer dat de mens de bron is van God.quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 13:04 schreef wijsneus het volgende:
[..]
De gelovige zal beargumenteren dat god de bron van deze waarden is.
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Het enige juiste antwoord daarop is uiteraard:quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 13:07 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
[..]
Ik beargumenteer dat de mens de bron is van God.
Nietus!
Siamo Tutti Antifascisti!
God's an astronaut, everything is true....quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 13:15 schreef wijsneus het volgende:
[..]
Het enige juiste antwoord daarop is uiteraard:
Nietus!
"Leven begon in de ruimte, niet op aarde"
[ Bericht 8% gewijzigd door Papierversnipperaar op 15-08-2007 13:38:52 ]
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
De mens is de bron van religie. Bron van god is heel wat anders.quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 13:07 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
Ik beargumenteer dat de mens de bron is van God.
Carpe Libertatem
Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!?quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 13:58 schreef Boze_Appel het volgende:
[..]
De mens is de bron van religie. Bron van god is heel wat anders.
Free Assange! Hack the Planet
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
[b]Op dinsdag 6 januari 2009 19:59 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:[/b]
De gevolgen van de argumenten van de anti-rook maffia
Religie is door de mens bedacht en god of goden als ze geen bewijsbare invloed hebben op de wereld is niet bewijsbaar. Niet bewijsbaar dat ze bestaan en niet bewijsbaar dat ze niet bestaan.quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 14:05 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:
Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!? Wat dan?!?
Carpe Libertatem
Net zo interessant dus als Russell's theepot, de onzichtbare roze ruimteëenhoorn en het vliegende spaghettimonster.quote:Op woensdag 15 augustus 2007 14:10 schreef Boze_Appel het volgende:
[..]
Religie is door de mens bedacht en god of goden als ze geen bewijsbare invloed hebben op de wereld is niet bewijsbaar. Niet bewijsbaar dat ze bestaan en niet bewijsbaar dat ze niet bestaan.
Oftewel: bloody irrelevant, net als alle andere dingen die noch bewijsbaar noch onbewijsbaar zijn en waarvan het niet zeker is of het er überhaupt is.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
- Bertrand Russell
Niets is bewijsbaar. We kunnen slechts een graad van waarschijnlijkheid toekennen, en zelfs dat is subjectief.
Siamo Tutti Antifascisti!
