Ruminations on the Course of Humanity

[PoliticalChic]

I think I know why you're so fucked up. You read. A lot. But all you read is propoganda.

What an astounding refutation! Rebuttal par excellence!

How does one manage to interweave so many astute and dispositive revelations into a mere two lines....

Speechless. I'm left speechless.

For the lesser folks, like myself...if you have the time, could you assemble a list
of the many non-propaganda journals, essays, tomes, dissertations that you studied that went into your magnificent post....

What is really funny, is that someone less perceptive than myself my misunderstand your post and jump to the - mistaken- conclusion that you never learned to question, to look at the underpinings of a less-than-intuitive understanding of eschatological world views.

Wouldn't that be humorous?

 

[G.T.]

I think I know why you're so fucked up. You read. A lot. But all you read is propoganda.

What an astounding refutation! Rebuttal par excellence!

How does one manage to interweave so many astute and dispositive revelations into a mere two lines....

Speechless. I'm left speechless.

For the lesser folks, like myself...if you have the time, could you assemble a list
of the many non-propaganda journals, essays, tomes, dissertations that you studied that went into your magnificent post....

What is really funny, is that someone less perceptive than myself my misunderstand your post and jump to the - mistaken- conclusion that you never learned to question, to look at the underpinings of a less-than-intuitive understanding of eschatological world views.

Wouldn't that be humorous?

You do convey that you *are* less than intuitive. Almost all of your posts consist of copy pastes from known propogandists, a.k.a., you're gullible and only seek to read that which reaffirms your preconceived biases.

Your initial assertion that the non-Religious cannot point to "why" they value human life is absurd to the point of....sadness. You accidentally admitted that without Religion you'd, yourself, place no value on human life. That's a shame, but good thing it's not true for most of us good people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think I know why you're so fucked up. You read. A lot. But all you read is propoganda.

What an astounding refutation! Rebuttal par excellence!

How does one manage to interweave so many astute and dispositive revelations into a mere two lines....

Speechless. I'm left speechless.

For the lesser folks, like myself...if you have the time, could you assemble a list
of the many non-propaganda journals, essays, tomes, dissertations that you studied that went into your magnificent post....

What is really funny, is that someone less perceptive than myself my misunderstand your post and jump to the - mistaken- conclusion that you never learned to question, to look at the underpinings of a less-than-intuitive understanding of eschatological world views.

Wouldn't that be humorous?

You do convey that you *are* less than intuitive. Almost all of your posts consist of copy pastes from known propogandists, a.k.a., you're gullible and only seek to read that which reaffirms your preconceived biases.

Your initial assertion that the non-Religious cannot point to "why" they value human life is absurd to the point of....sadness. You accidentally admitted that without Religion you'd, yourself, place no value on human life. That's a shame, but good thing it's not true for most of us good people.

OMG!

So there really is a learing curve!
All I had to do was make fun of you, and, look here! An actual attempt to compose a real answer!

1. Now, what is the default reponse form folks who don't read, have no research support for their ideas?
Oh, yes...here it is:
"...Almost all of your posts consist of copy pastes..."

I understand how you would feel under-gunned, and even embarrassed at how little experience you have in the world of learning...or, as you put it:
" You read. A lot."

Meaning, that the vast gulf that separates is, what? that you can barely read? Don't read at all?

Ya' know, you have a point in trying to prevent me from applying the benefits of reading, and of learning...the old "just cut and paste" defense....

Good try...a failure, but, at least an attempt.

2."you're gullible and only seek to read that which reaffirms your preconceived biases. "
I kind of like this line of argument...
It would be a good start, but doesn't hold up as an entire one...
Here, let me help you.
Your corollary should have been to then provide several examples which counter what my "preconceived biases" are...

but that would require the abilities of one who actually reads..and thinks....and we've already ascertained that said skills are not within your ken.
Tsk, tsk.

3. Now, here is a plus for your post:
"Your initial assertion that the non-Religious cannot point to "why" they value human life ..."
Correct.
And if you can defeat this idea, it would go far in supporting an argument.

But, in two, three posts, you have done no more than the...forgive this characterization, ignorant default position of "is not, is not..."

C'mon, give it a shot: My claim is that from a religious perspective, the Genesis-derived doctrine that God created man in his own image, gives people of faith a reason to value the lives of others.

Again, I haven't said that you, personally, don't value the lives of others, but rather, that secularism is not a philosophy that has as its presumptive doctrine, such a belief. In fact I point out that the iconic secular belief, communism, is based on a worship of the material, and has a modus operandi of murder and enslavement.

4. You might get a kick out of this, from the Amazon review of Godless, by Coulter…

Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion. In Godless, Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us its sacraments (abortion), its holy writ (Roe v. Wade), its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal), its clergy (public school teachers), its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free), its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the "absolute moral authority" of spokesmen from Cindy Sheehan to Max Cleland), and its cosmology (in which mankind is an inconsequential accident).

Then, of course, there's the liberal creation myth: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

For liberals, evolution is the touchstone that separates the enlightened from the benighted.

 

[G.T.]

You are such a small person, smh.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are such a small person, smh.

G.T.
I must tell you that I appreciate your taking the time to respond in this thread, as the topic is of great interest to me.

I mean this question seriously, and mean no disrespect by it...but when you find a subject that cuts to the very heart of one's worldview, and you find that you are unable to counter the other side...doesn't it make you want to rethink some very, very basic ideas about life?

While I would apreciate a serious response, I will understand if you choose not to.
Thank you again for your input.

 

[dilloduck]

I think I know why you're so fucked up. You read. A lot. But all you read is propoganda.

What an astounding refutation! Rebuttal par excellence!

How does one manage to interweave so many astute and dispositive revelations into a mere two lines....

Speechless. I'm left speechless.

For the lesser folks, like myself...if you have the time, could you assemble a list
of the many non-propaganda journals, essays, tomes, dissertations that you studied that went into your magnificent post....

What is really funny, is that someone less perceptive than myself my misunderstand your post and jump to the - mistaken- conclusion that you never learned to question, to look at the underpinings of a less-than-intuitive understanding of eschatological world views.

Wouldn't that be humorous?

You do convey that you *are* less than intuitive. Almost all of your posts consist of copy pastes from known propogandists, a.k.a., you're gullible and only seek to read that which reaffirms your preconceived biases.

Your initial assertion that the non-Religious cannot point to "why" they value human life is absurd to the point of....sadness. You accidentally admitted that without Religion you'd, yourself, place no value on human life. That's a shame, but good thing it's not true for most of us good people.

So can you point out the value of human life ?

 

[JBeukema]

I think I know why you're so fucked up. You read. A lot. But all you read is propoganda.

What an astounding refutation! Rebuttal par excellence!

How does one manage to interweave so many astute and dispositive revelations into a mere two lines....

Speechless. I'm left speechless.

For the lesser folks, like myself...if you have the time, could you assemble a list
of the many non-propaganda journals, essays, tomes, dissertations that you studied that went into your magnificent post....

What is really funny, is that someone less perceptive than myself my misunderstand your post and jump to the - mistaken- conclusion that you never learned to question, to look at the underpinings of a less-than-intuitive understanding of eschatological world views.

Wouldn't that be humorous?

I refuted your bullshit on page one. As always, you're scared to even attempt to rebut.

 

[amrchaos]

How can you tell if something, such as a man or an animal, value anything.

Do they defend this thing of value? Do they care for it? If they can not protect it, do they teach this thing of value to survive on its own?

Now tell us... What has protected you. Cared for you. Taught you how to take care of yourself.














Don't forget your parents!

 

[G.T.]

I value human life because I've seen and understood the beauty in it. But there's no fucking purpose to tell someone "why" you value human life because the essence of having to ask is the essence of pompass ass-holishness. Either that, or it just comes from a bad person flat out.

 

[JBeukema]

PC only values human life because we're modeled after a genocidal egotistical jackass who orders young rape victims to serve their rapists in bed for the rest of their lives?


She really is a piece of shit...

 

[G.T.]

I wuddn't gunna say piece of shit, but when she assumes I need links and paragraphs to convey why I value human life, that suggests to me there's either a GENEROUS amount of arrogance there, or else a pretty hefty bit of evil. Perhaps just stupidity. A little OCD? Who knows.

 

[JBeukema]

PC, why should we value people who are made in the image of a murderous, misogynistic, genocidal, god like yours?

 

[PoliticalChic]

How can you tell if something, such as a man or an animal, value anything.

Do they defend this thing of value? Do they care for it? If they can not protect it, do they teach this thing of value to survive on its own?

Now tell us... What has protected you. Cared for you. Taught you how to take care of yourself.














Don't forget your parents!

This has been an interesting thread, and not particularly lengthy. If you have the time, and the interest, you might wish to read it through. Because the thread is not really with reference to the thoughts or inclinations of a particular person, but rather the nature of two, I find, antithetical schools of thought.

One, the religious, and the other, the secular.

1. The principle characteristic of Western modernity is freedom of thought and expression, especially the ability to express dissent.

a. The 18th century Enlightenment produced the modern age by removing the power of the church to control debate and punish heresy. This was the real separation of Church and State, and the creation of a tolerant and (classically) liberal society, at least in the United States...arguably not in France.

b. Of course, it would be disingenuous to claim a straight line from obscurantism to enlightenment, when the French Revolution sits squarely in the middle. While the Jacobin Terror removed Christianity, it replaced it with secular tyranny and gave rise to the political totalitarianism of communism, fascism, and progressivism.

2. But history is a complex and curious process. While the Enlightenment may be seen as a reaction to the abuses of clerical authority, it must be remembered that the biblical imprecation that all humanity was equal, having been fashioned in the image of God, provided the template for liberty. And many Enlightenment thinkers were religious, albeit many were less Christians, but rather deists who believed in an impersonal god who did not interfere in human life.

a. Leibniz argued that the universe was composed of individual units in harmony with God’s divine ordinance.

b. John Locke thought that man’s duty to God to preserve mankind as part of Creation was the basic moral law of nature.

c. Isaac Newton and Joseph Priestly were devout Christians, but Dissenters.

d. Voltaire claimed that the infamy was not just the Catholic Church, but phrase refers to abuses to the people by royalty and the clergy that Voltaire saw around him. Christianity itself, he cried "écrasez l'infâme," or "crush the infamous".

So, these are, to me, the two extremes. Only one begins with an abiding esteem for human life, and that is the point of the OP.
Some of the ideas above can be found in "The World Turned Upside Down," by Melanie Phillips

 

[Sky Dancer]

Heady stuff, but no heart. Talk about burying the hypothesis.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Heady stuff, but no heart. Talk about burying the hypothesis.

No opinion?

 

[AmericanFirst]

Religion is the reason why human life has a value. It is because man was created in God’s image.

So, which is it? Because of religion or because of what your religion tells you?

You really think Buddhists, Shinto, Hindu, and the Apache place no value on human life?

You'd place no value on human life if you learned you weren't a photocopy of a magical sky daddy?

You're really not a very good person, are you?

Instead, the lodestone for secular belief is progress….and if millions have to be sacrificed to proceed toward the goal that they envision, so be it.

Isn't it your religion which justifies 99% of those who ever lived ending up inn a lake of fire for eternity as 'necessary' for those who chose' to be able to spend eternity on their knees worshiping your god?

You really are a piece of shit, aren't you?

For Marx, it was material that formed the basis for human activity.
“Marxism reduced man to his animal wants and material needs….Marxism was a downward step from the human to the animal- a descent from civilization into barbarism, which is to say, from the worship of God to the worship of material things.” Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 79.

The entire value system behind capitalism is revealed in the origin of the very word itself.

The lexical roots of the word capital reveal roots in the trade and ownership of animals. The Latin root of the word capital is capitalis, from the proto-Indo-European Tkaput, which means "head", this being how wealth was measured. The more heads of cattle, the better. The terms chattel (meaning goods, animals, or slaves) and even cattle itself also derive from this same origin. The lexical connections between animal trade and economics can also be seen in the names of many currencies and words about money: fee (faihu), rupee (rupya), buck (a deerskin), pecuniary (pecu), stock (livestock), and peso (pecu or pashu) all derive from animal-trade origins.

To this day, the bourgeoisie reveal the value they place on human lives every day, with such delightful phrases as 'I buy and sell people like you' and the very nature of wage slavery, by which a man must sell his own self in order to purchase the right to continue his existence.

Wrong idiot. If you are saying pc's religion is Christianity obviously you do not know what you are talking about. Christianity does not justify the false statement, or your lie, of 99% of mankind ending up in the lake of fire.

 

[JBeukema]

Christianity does not justify the false statement, or your lie, of 99% of mankind ending up in the lake of fire.

Exact number are not mentioned, but it makes clear that a minority will avoid the lake of fire and the outer darkness

Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life, and few there are that find it

Strive to enter by the narrow gate; for many, I say to you, shall seek to enter, and shall not be able.


​

 

[dilloduck]

So---without any relgious references, what is the value, meaning and purpose of human life ? How does secularism and progressivism define a human's value and role ?