2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: punaperson on May 15, 2017, 11:08:26 AM
-
Where's the "Religious Discussion" Thread? Okay, so I'll have to post in "Political", and this is rather "political" anyway. Even though I'm as far from Herschel Smith as can be when it comes to believing in religion, I'm right there with him in his conclusion on this one.
By What Right Do We Bear Arms? In The End, Every Knee Shall Bow And Every Tongue Confess That Jesus Is Lord
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2017/05/14/by-what-right-do-we-bear-arms-in-the-end-every-knee-shall-bow-and-every-tongue-confess-that-jesus-is-lord/
Excerpt:
Even if my rights aren’t observed by society, they still exist.
To be sure, there are wicked rulers and judges, and all gun control is wickedness conducted by men bent upon evil. Resisting them is not only acceptable, but expected and even commanded. I’ve even demonstrated that when Jesus commanded his disciples to sell their robe and buy a sword, he was quite literally commanding them to arm themselves in violation of the law. He was commanding them to become law breakers in order to effect self defense. That’s how seriously God takes this issue. [My emphasis.]
-
Religion has no place in law.
-
Religion has no place in law.
How would you know?
Are you a theologian at heart, too?
-
How would you know?
Are you a theologian at heart, too?
No our constitution says so. We are a secular state. If we abandon that what stops the Muslims saying sharia law has to be followed?
-
No our constitution says so. We are a secular state. If we abandon that what stops the Muslims saying sharia law has to be followed?
Show me the passage of some document that uses the word "secular".
-
Show me the passage of some document that uses the word "secular".
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Jerfferson
Yes cause people need to have the exact words to describe something meaning doesn't carry. Sorry forgot to think about your intellectual level.
sec·u·lar
ˈsekyələr/Submit
adjective
1.denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
-
Religion has no place in law.
Did you read the article by Smith? Or any of the links to his other articles about rights and/or their relationship to christian values/beliefs?
He isn't arguing that religion should be incorporated into government (though I suspect he does favor that). He is arguing that rights (such as self-defense) pre-exist governments, and governments have no legal authority to criminalize the exercise of those rights, therefore we have (in his case, a "religious") duty to disobey those laws.
-
Did you read the article by Smith? Or any of the links to his other articles about rights and/or their relationship to christian values/beliefs?
He isn't arguing that religion should be incorporated into government (though I suspect he does favor that). He is arguing that rights (such as self-defense) pre-exist governments, and governments have no legal authority to criminalize the exercise of those rights, therefore we have (in his case, a "religious") duty to disobey those laws.
It was incredibly biased. And ridiculous.
"A man-made document can never … never … establish rights. "
- yes, yes it can....
"our rights come from God Himself, the Almighty king of heaven and earth, the maker of the universe, the one who determines what He will do with the clay vessels he creates, the only potentate and sovereign."
-what if you believe in a god that says you have no rights to self defense or guns? No one can prove which god exists.
"Even if my rights aren’t observed by society, they still exist. "
-So if Muslims believe in the right to stone people they still exist? Come on there is a reason why government and religion are separate...
-
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Jerfferson
Yes cause people need to have the exact words to describe something meaning doesn't carry. Sorry forgot to think about your intellectual level.
sec·u·lar
ˈsekyələr/Submit
adjective
1.denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
If you want to compare intellectual levels, you're going to lose BIG time!
You always argue in one dimension, as if that one viewpoint covers all questions. That's a simplistic and erroneous position.
People exist in various environments: individual, immediate family, extended family, and community/society. Community is defined as citizenship. Religion is PROTECTED under the Constitution. The government is not allowed to pick a favorite religion to support. HOWEVER, that's not the same as excluding all religion from government.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Sounds like someone went to Church and carried over some of what they learned to the Constitution.
You can prevent organized religions (churches) from exerting power in politics, but you can not, and should not, try to exclude the teachings of religion in general. Saying the teachings of religion don't matter in the law is ridiculous on its face.
We've already tried to explain morality and the difference between right and wrong to you to no avail. If you intend to drag us into the same "religion is bad" arguments you already failed to prove, then I'll leave it to someone else to try and talk some sense into your thick skull.
I'm done with you. Pig singing lessons are over.
-
If you want to compare intellectual levels, you're going to lose BIG time!
You always argue in one dimension, as if that one viewpoint covers all questions. That's a simplistic and erroneous position.
People exist in various environments: individual, immediate family, extended family, and community/society. Community is defined as citizenship. Religion is PROTECTED under the Constitution. The government is not allowed to pick a favorite religion to support. HOWEVER, that's not the same as excluding all religion from government.
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Sounds like someone went to Church and carried over some of what they learned to the Constitution.
You can prevent organized religions (churches) from exerting power in politics, but you can not, and should not, try to exclude the teachings of religion in general. Saying the teachings of religion don't matter in the law is ridiculous on its face.
We've already tried to explain morality and the difference between right and wrong to you to no avail. If you intend to drag us into the same "religion is bad" arguments you already failed to prove, then I'll leave it to someone else to try and talk some sense into your thick skull.
I'm done with you. Pig singing lessons are over.
Just cause there is evidence of religion making its way into the government doesn't mean its right... Do I have to explain that to you? You can interpenetrate "that they are endowed by their Creator" to be anything. An atheist can believe their creator is their mother and father. Or single celled organisms. I'n a perfect world with a perfect government there would be true separation of state and church but we are only "human" and because of that emotions get factored in. What I advocate is to strive for perfection not to settle for what we got. Regardless of environment we are citizens of the united state of america, small communities have no right to fully govern themselves. If they did a cult or all the Muslims or another religion could gather together and form a "community" with its own citizenship inside america with its own laws....Most of you opinions are clouded by the fact you are religious. Everything is tainted with your non objective thought. I am guilty of this on the other spectrum but in this argument I have the right mindset.
-
Just cause there is evidence of religion making its way into the government doesn't mean its right... Do I have to explain that to you? You can interpenetrate "that they are endowed by their Creator" to be anything. An atheist can believe their creator is their mother and father. Or single celled organisms. I'n a perfect world with a perfect government there would be true separation of state and church but we are only "human" and because of that emotions get factored in. What I advocate is to strive for perfection not to settle for what we got. Regardless of environment we are citizens of the united state of america, small communities have no right to fully govern themselves. If they did a cult or all the Muslims or another religion could gather together and form a "community" with its own citizenship inside america with its own laws....Most of you opinions are clouded by the fact you are religious. Everything is tainted with your non objective thought. I am guilty of this on the other spectrum but in this argument I have the right mindset.
Who said I'm religious? That's ONE MORE FALSE ASSUMPTION to add to your ever-growing list!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
No our constitution says so. We are a secular state. If we abandon that what stops the Muslims saying sharia law has to be followed?
The constitution does not say that.
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, he mentioned he separation of church and state.
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What about someone of a specific religion attempts to manipulate the law or lawmakers to reflect his religions doctrines?
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
-
What about someone of a specific religion attempts to manipulate the law or lawmakers to reflect his religions doctrines.
That's why we don't let one person make the laws.
-
That's why we don't let one person make the laws.
I actually was inferring that someone with a specific religious belief and power over lawmakers. I realize that theoretically no one person has that power. HOWEVER do you really think it doesn't happen?
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
-
What about someone of a specific religion attempts to manipulate the law or lawmakers to reflect his religions doctrines?
Everyone who attempts to influence legislation does so on the basis of the values they hold (exception of course for professional lobbyists who do it for money, which is their value). Those values may be based upon religion or some non-religious philosophy or other system of thought and/or belief. The point is not to prohibit people from having and expressing their values, and their asking government laws to embody or reflect those values, but to prevent the government from embodying those values directly per se, at the expense of people who do not share that value (religious or otherwise), and as a consequence would have their rights infringed.
In this case, the object is to protect the "natural" (non-religious) or "god given" (religious) rights, which include self-defense (as when someone would try to harm someone else, including on the basis of their religious values). If religious "believers" want to throw gays off buildings or hang people of certain races or ethnicities from trees because they claim that is their "right" as religious believers, then our only hope is that the gays and other people are adequately armed in order to exercise their pre-existing right to self-defense against those who would obviously be attempting to rob them of their "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
The question is not about the source of the values but 1. whether or not government adopts any of them as "official policy" and 2. whether any of those adopted policies (religious or otherwise) infringe the rights of citizens.
Is there any argument that the de facto "no issue" policy of Hawaii for bearing arms outside the home is NOT an infringement of the right of self-defense?
-
I actually was inferring that someone with a specific religious belief and power over lawmakers. I realize that theoretically no one person has that power. HOWEVER do you really think it doesn't happen?
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
You can't draw a line between the teachings of religion and the beliefs lawmakers hold. We are a collection of everything we have learned.
There are some trolls here that want to paint people as robots, able to be programmed to only think in logical terms and create laws that have some numerically optimal outcome. That's naive at best, dishonest at worst.
If I believe "Murder is against God's law," does than mean we can't make murder illegal by statute? If we make murder illegal, we are agreeing with the religious teaching. Why are we so sensitized to reject religion, when it appears lack of religious morals is doing much more harm to society than a "secular" approach to controlling society.
You can't make a law for everything. People need a foundation built on the knowledge of what's right and wrong. All these "gray area" thinkers blur those lines, making it impossible for anyone to judge for themselves if something is wrong. No one can learn and understand the existing laws and ordinances at the city, county, state and federal level. That's why they say most people have broken at least three laws before they ever get to their jobs in the morning.
The golden rule is a good guideline: treat others the way you'd want them to treat you. That doesn't go into this or that situation. It's a guideline that makes life in society better than living for oneself. Why is that a bad thing to try and "influence" lawmakers to keep in mind?
-
I actually was inferring that someone with a specific religious belief and power over lawmakers. I realize that theoretically no one person has that power. HOWEVER do you really think it doesn't happen?
I think you have to worry less about some religious person influencing the lawmakers than the religious lawmakers themselves. I'd name a few, but... :shake:
-
They can be/are one in the same. Perhaps ones religious beliefs as the head of a city council, county mayor or govenor coincide with the ruling parties secular objectives. Between the two there isn't much of a chance for a fair and objective review of issues/bills, etc.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
-
They can be/are one in the same. Perhaps ones religious beliefs as the head of a city council, county mayor or govenor coincide with the ruling parties secular objectives. Between the two there isn't much of a chance for a fair and objective review of issues/bills, etc.
The thing is, for a LOT of legislation (e.g. "rail", no-carry "public safety", etc.), both religious and "secular" ideology take a distant back seat to plain stupidity (though I suspect there is "evil" intent in all firearms related issues, and financial "benefit" in the other).
-
The thing is, for a LOT of legislation (e.g. "rail", no-carry "public safety", etc.), both religious and "secular" ideology take a distant back seat to plain stupidity (though I suspect there is "evil" intent in all firearms related issues, and financial "benefit" in the other).
Had the lawmakers not given into the temptation of power and greed, many bad decisions would have been averted.
Instead, the mentality of raising taxes to give jobs to unions that elect certain politicians is never wrong, because "everyone does it -- why should I be left off the gravy train?"
Maybe a little more religion and a little less rationalizing in the realm of "gray area" isn't a bad thing.
-
The constitution does not say that.
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, he mentioned he separation of church and state.
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are correct but the:
First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
-
You can't draw a line between the teachings of religion and the beliefs lawmakers hold. We are a collection of everything we have learned.
There are some trolls here that want to paint people as robots, able to be programmed to only think in logical terms and create laws that have some numerically optimal outcome. That's naive at best, dishonest at worst.
If I believe "Murder is against God's law," does than mean we can't make murder illegal by statute? If we make murder illegal, we are agreeing with the religious teaching. Why are we so sensitized to reject religion, when it appears lack of religious morals is doing much more harm to society than a "secular" approach to controlling society.
You can't make a law for everything. People need a foundation built on the knowledge of what's right and wrong. All these "gray area" thinkers blur those lines, making it impossible for anyone to judge for themselves if something is wrong. No one can learn and understand the existing laws and ordinances at the city, county, state and federal level. That's why they say most people have broken at least three laws before they ever get to their jobs in the morning.
The golden rule is a good guideline: treat others the way you'd want them to treat you. That doesn't go into this or that situation. It's a guideline that makes life in society better than living for oneself. Why is that a bad thing to try and "influence" lawmakers to keep in mind?
Difference is some people desire the best and emotionless robotic laws are the most fair. Emotions tend to ruin everything and are NOT logical (in the scientific way).
We can make a law against murder simply because it causes a major negative effect on our nation and its people. It does not need a magic man in the sky to say its morally wrong.
You can make a law for everything or at least a guideline taught in school and in the home. Religion does not have to be the basis its why atheists and agnostics can exist.
I agree with your golden rule and add that I think humans should leave the world a better place than when they came.
Who said I'm religious? That's ONE MORE FALSE ASSUMPTION to add to your ever-growing list!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
You have said you are a christian before, or believed in god.
Had the lawmakers not given into the temptation of power and greed, many bad decisions would have been averted.
Instead, the mentality of raising taxes to give jobs to unions that elect certain politicians is never wrong, because "everyone does it -- why should I be left off the gravy train?"
Maybe a little more religion and a little less rationalizing in the realm of "gray area" isn't a bad thing.
Its why we need computer programs to make some laws and enforce some rulings. Or at minimum a mixture. Machines don't get swayed by money, they don't get confused by emotions, they would look at the facts and make laws and rulings. Nothing more and nothing less. Pure logical bliss. But until that technology exists we need to stop making politics lucrative.
-
I actually was inferring that someone with a specific religious belief and power over lawmakers. I realize that theoretically no one person has that power. HOWEVER do you really think it doesn't happen?
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
You mean like Reverend Jeremiah Wright over Barrack Hussein Obama teaching him about the bad whiteys and Jews?
-
The Judeo-Christian Values of America
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/09/the_judeochristian_values_of_a.html
"Our Founding Fathers separated church from state, but they wisely did not separate God from state; they acknowledged God as the source of our rights, and, in fact, they were careful to place Biblical morality directly into our founding documents and laws, and into our values and culture precisely to help prevent a future of totalitarian or tyrannical rule in America. The combination of keeping Judeo-Christian religious morality in the state, as opposed to the church it's self; and, additionally, setting up our laws based on reason and common sense has contributed to the American Character, and to what is known as "American Exceptionalism."
-
You mean like Reverend Jeremiah Wright over Barrack Hussein Obama teaching him about the bad whiteys and Jews?
Well, if you look at certain general similarities, it might be "fair" to consider marxism/socialism/progressivism as "religions", in which case the Obama "religious" mentors are Frank Marshall and Saul Alinsky. :geekdanc: :shaka:
-
Well, if you look at certain general similarities, it might be "fair" to consider marxism/socialism/progressivism as "religions", in which case the Obama "religious" mentors are Frank Marshall and Saul Alinsky. :geekdanc: :shaka:
With a little Whitey and Jew hatred thrown in by Wright. :shake: :shake: :shake:
-
You have said you are a christian before, or believed in god.
I never did. You can't keep your lies straight, Troll Boy!
-
Its why we need computer programs to make some laws and enforce some rulings. Or at minimum a mixture. Machines don't get swayed by money, they don't get confused by emotions, they would look at the facts and make laws and rulings. Nothing more and nothing less. Pure logical bliss. But until that technology exists we need to stop making politics lucrative.
I saw that on Star Trek. They called the machine "Landru". It didn't work out very well for the people until Kirk and Spock took Landru offline.
You're hopeless.
-
With a little Whitey and Jew hatred thrown in by Wright. :shake: :shake: :shake:
You're like a kid with a stick poking a Opossum to see if it will jump up. SAD!
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
-
Well, if you look at certain general similarities, it might be "fair" to consider marxism/socialism/progressivism as "religions", in which case the Obama "religious" mentors are Frank Marshall and Saul Alinsky. :geekdanc: :shaka:
Don't leave out the religion of Climate Change. They adopted the Muslim tenant of "If you don't believe, you will be punished" by shaming, shunning and calling them "deniers." Same as "heresy" laws.
-
You're like a kid with a stick poking a Opossum to see if it will jump up. SAD!
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
He might be provoking, but he's also fundamentally accurate.
No person can sit in a church for that many years and not believe the things being preached. If he was not a believer, he would have found another church a long time ago.
-
Religion has no place in law and Rights in America.
IMO.
The Truths and Rights are self-evident.
For the most part, Religion is not even being discussed in this thread.
Hence the accurate title of the thread which got diluted along the way.
The Right to Keep and Bear arms.
No need to be religious in any Religion to understand that right.
Certainly no need to be Christian.
Christian calling to violate the law.
Bomb abortion clinics and attack Gays and Gay marriage comes to mind.
I haven't read much of it, but my limited understanding is that the Good Book also says you can wreak havoc, deprive others of their basic rights, heck you can be downright deprave, and still be "saved". Forgiven if you repent and accept .......
I don't know enough about it.
-
Religion has no place in law and Rights in America.
IMO.
The Truths and Rights are self-evident.
For the most part, Religion is not even being discussed in this thread.
Hence the accurate title of the thread which got diluted along the way.
The Right to Keep and Bear arms.
No need to be religious in any Religion to understand that right.
Certainly no need to be Christian.
Christian calling to violate the law.
Bomb abortion clinics and attack Gays and Gay marriage comes to mind.
I haven't read much of it, but my limited understanding is that the Good Book also says you can wreak havoc, deprive others of their basic rights, heck you can be downright deprave, and still be "saved". Forgiven if you repent and accept .......
I don't know enough about it.
Would the position stated by the "christian" have set better with you if he'd not quoted Bible verses and teachings, but instead quoted a civil rights legend? Does the source of the truth matter as much as the truthfulness of the message?
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
-
The first amendment was set in place to ensure that people have the freedom to worship God, free from interference by the government... No kings or monarchs telling people that they have to be Catholic or Protestant, unlike in Europe. The pilgrims faced religious prosecution in Europe by their government and wanted a new country free from the state make an official state religion.
The first amendment includes the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion.
"Freedom of religion or freedom of belief is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance. It also includes the freedom to change one's religion or belief."
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion
-
He might be provoking, but he's also fundamentally accurate.
No person can sit in a church for that many years and not believe the things being preached. If he was not a believer, he would have found another church a long time ago.
Here is an observstion. I notice there is a lot of action here during the day. In school, old or reading/replying on company time? What does this have anything to do with these posts or the 2A situation in Hawaii? Absolutely nothing!
I notice you refer to this person as a "TROLL". I agree! Beyond that I prefer to say inconsequential. People with sticks don't want a conversation imo just an argument.
By the way who doesn't know Obama IS a racist and hell bent on destroying America. Who do you think helped putting him in office? Answer: the same party that rules this state and others tht elected a relative unknown.
Now if I have religious questions I will ask and discuss in person with those knowledgeable and trained in the religion I have questions about.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk
-
The first amendment was set in place so that people have the freedom to worship God.
The first amendment includes the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion.
The first amendment also prevents the state from establishing an official religion, thereby making all religions protected - not just the one people in government agree with.
That's the separation part -- government can't require a religious affiliation to be elected or appointed to office, breaking with the way England did things. It has nothing to do with eliminating all references to religion from government.
In God We Trust
-
Would the position stated by the "christian" have set better with you if he'd not quoted Bible verses and teachings, but instead quoted a civil rights legend? Does the source of the truth matter as much as the truthfulness of the message?
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Wanna start a list of the unjust laws you're gonna recommend we start breaking ?
It's gonna be a long one.
Even the venerable Dr. King pick and chose.
Did that make him immoral?
A hypocrit ?
Stands to reason.
The first amendment was set in place so that people have the freedom to worship God.
The first amendment includes the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion.
Negative. It includes both as it includes the practice of no religion. they are intertwined inseparably.
In God We Trust
Everyone else, Cash.
(funny. That's written ON cash.)
-
Negative. It includes both as it includes the practice of no religion. they are intertwined inseparably.
I think you are overthinking it.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
See that part "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?
-
I agree there may come a time where the citizenry may need to set the law aside to fight for justice and against tyranny.
But it cannot be generalized.
When will the time be?
What will be the evil that requires setting aside the law to fight against it ?
Hopefully it will be self-evident.
(Doubtful but hopeful)
And it hopefully won't be based in Christianity or any other one particular religion.
Although it is also highly probable numerous religions will try to claim to be the root of the self-evident need for righteousness.
In the meantime, we do need to protect our right to do so when the time arises. (2A, assembly, speech and all the other good stuff)
-
Wanna start a list of the unjust laws you're gonna recommend we start breaking ?
It's gonna be a long one.
Even the venerable Dr. King pick and chose.
Did that make him immoral?
A hypocrit ?
Stands to reason.
Negative. It includes both as it includes the practice of no religion. they are intertwined inseparably.
Everyone else, Cash.
(funny. That's written ON cash.)
You pick your own battles. Unjust laws don't always affect the majority. In fact, it's the minority who need to fight against the unjust laws levied upon them by the majority.
When the state passes a law that affects YOU is when you have to decide on the best way to fight it. Sometimes disobedience is the first step to bringing your grievance to the public's attention.
-
No our constitution says so. We are a secular state. If we abandon that what stops the Muslims saying sharia law has to be followed?
A pure secular state is impossible. As a democracy we vote on leaders and therefore on laws. You cannot stop someone from voting based on their moral beliefs. Furthermore, you have values that are shared by both the religious and secularists. Murder is wrong is a religious value, would you remove it from law because the government cannot have religious influences?
As for the Jefferson quote, I am not an English scholar but the way I read the statement is that the government is not to interfere in religion. It cannot establish a religion or control it. I don't see it as meaning that religion cannot influence government.
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Jerfferson
-
A pure secular state is impossible. As a democracy we vote on leaders and therefore on laws. You cannot stop someone from voting based on their moral beliefs. Furthermore, you have values that are shared by both the religious and secularists. Murder is wrong is a religious value, would you remove it from law because the government cannot have religious influences?
As for the Jefferson quote, I am not an English scholar but the way I read the statement is that the government is not to interfere in religion. It cannot establish a religion or control it. I don't see it as meaning that religion cannot influence government.
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Jerfferson
Somebody pinch me! I must be hallucinating! :shake:
:geekdanc: I agree :geekdanc:
(I hope you appreciate the amount of effort it took to post this)
-
Somebody pinch me! I must be hallucinating! :shake:
:geekdanc: I agree :geekdanc:
(I hope you appreciate the amount of effort it took to post this)
Great minds think alike. So do crazy ones apparently. :wacko:
-
A pure secular state is impossible. As a democracy we vote on leaders and therefore on laws. You cannot stop someone from voting based on their moral beliefs. Furthermore, you have values that are shared by both the religious and secularists. Murder is wrong is a religious value, would you remove it from law because the government cannot have religious influences?
As for the Jefferson quote, I am not an English scholar but the way I read the statement is that the government is not to interfere in religion. It cannot establish a religion or control it. I don't see it as meaning that religion cannot influence government.
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Jerfferson
The problem is we need to seek perfection while I do agree with you right now pure secular state is an impossible dream its something we need to work towards. The value of murder is wrong is a shared value thus is fine. Its when its only a value of religion does it tend to be wrong. For example a secular society might view flogging people for being gay to be wrong, but a religion like Islam views it to be correct. In this case the secular society would trump the religion. What we need is impartial AI (robots) that rule based on science and facts and not emotions.
-
The problem is we need to seek perfection while I do agree with you right now pure secular state is an impossible dream its something we need to work towards. The value of murder is wrong is a shared value thus is fine. Its when its only a value of religion does it tend to be wrong. For example a secular society might view flogging people for being gay to be wrong, but a religion like Islam views it to be correct. In this case the secular society would trump the religion. What we need is impartial AI (robots) that rule based on science and facts and not emotions.
I know I'm going to regret jumping in here. But here goes. . .
Are you saying that morality is dependent upon religion? Or more specifically, definition of morality being based on religion?
-
I know I'm going to regret jumping in here. But here goes. . .
Are you saying that morality is dependent upon religion? Or more specifically, definition of morality being based on religion?
No morality can be defined on whats best for a society or its people. You don't need religion to have morality. Murder is bad for a society and for its people thus it can be banned. You can be moral and be an atheist. As an society right now though there are ties with morality and religion I am not refuting that. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't have to be tied together.
-
No morality can be defined on whats best for a society or its people. You don't need religion to have morality. Murder is bad for a society and for its people thus it can be banned. You can be moral and be an atheist. As an society right now though there are ties with morality and religion I am not refuting that. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't have to be tied together.
Got it. I was keying on "Its when its only a value of religion does it tend to be wrong".
-
(https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/s320x320/e35/17661869_1417585318316976_4094069728283197440_n.jpg)
-
The problem is we need to seek perfection while I do agree with you right now pure secular state is an impossible dream its something we need to work towards. The value of murder is wrong is a shared value thus is fine. Its when its only a value of religion does it tend to be wrong. For example a secular society might view flogging people for being gay to be wrong, but a religion like Islam views it to be correct. In this case the secular society would trump the religion. What we need is impartial AI (robots) that rule based on science and facts and not emotions.
Secularism combined with moral relativism throws a wrench in your plan. As long as secularism considers it a moral then it doesn't matter whether the religion considers it a value? What happens when secularism changes a value?
I don't think AI robot can determine moral values.
No morality can be defined on whats best for a society or its people. You don't need religion to have morality. Murder is bad for a society and for its people thus it can be banned. You can be moral and be an atheist. As an society right now though there are ties with morality and religion I am not refuting that. What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't have to be tied together
Do you realize how problematic that definition is? "What is best for society." Good luck on getting people to agree on that.
-
Someone here thinks the Blue Pill is the right answer for everyone.... A perfect existence created by a computer to control us all.
(http://i.imgur.com/y4KETgz.jpg)
-
Someone here thinks the Blue Pill is the right answer for everyone.... A perfect existence created by a computer to control us all.
(http://i.imgur.com/y4KETgz.jpg)
Embrace the inevitability, Mr. Anderson...
-
Secularism combined with moral relativism throws a wrench in your plan. As long as secularism considers it a moral then it doesn't matter whether the religion considers it a value? What happens when secularism changes a value?
I don't think AI robot can determine moral values.
Do you realize how problematic that definition is? "What is best for society." Good luck on getting people to agree on that.
If secularism considers it moral than true, it doesn't matter what religions say. It only matters the other way around.
There is a reason why having an AI decide is best, it unbiased and with humans help can figure out what is "best for society".
Someone here thinks the Blue Pill is the right answer for everyone.... A perfect existence created by a computer to control us all.
(http://i.imgur.com/y4KETgz.jpg)
No I'm not advocating pure robot control that limits freedom. What I want is a mix, where humans bias and emotions that can effect freedom have a robot make decisions. This robot will rule in the most fair freedom giving way. In many cases of law, corruption, projects an unbiased robot would make the best decisions. It isn't political or corruptible. Look at our rail, imagine if it was run by something not bought out by the construction companies? Imagine if it wasn't influenced by the unions and other powers to be?
-
If secularism considers it moral than true, it doesn't matter what religions say. It only matters the other way around.
There is a reason why having an AI decide is best, it unbiased and with humans help can figure out what is "best for society".
No I'm not advocating pure robot control that limits freedom. What I want is a mix, where humans bias and emotions that can effect freedom have a robot make decisions. This robot will rule in the most fair freedom giving way. In many cases of law, corruption, projects an unbiased robot would make the best decisions. It isn't political or corruptible. Look at our rail, imagine if it was run by something not bought out by the construction companies? Imagine if it wasn't influenced by the unions and other powers to be?
"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LOL
-
Computers deciding what's best for humans?
What could possibly go wrong?
(http://i.imgur.com/MctZQsH.jpg)
-
If secularism considers it moral than true, it doesn't matter what religions say. It only matters the other way around.
There is a reason why having an AI decide is best, it unbiased and with humans help can figure out what is "best for society".
No I'm not advocating pure robot control that limits freedom. What I want is a mix, where humans bias and emotions that can effect freedom have a robot make decisions. This robot will rule in the most fair freedom giving way. In many cases of law, corruption, projects an unbiased robot would make the best decisions. It isn't political or corruptible. Look at our rail, imagine if it was run by something not bought out by the construction companies? Imagine if it wasn't influenced by the unions and other powers to be?
So you're assuming that AI would somehow evolve to be completely independent and uninfluenced by the people (and their values) who programmed the pre-AI machines. Using your prescient insight, tell us how the AI will decide the question of terminating (or not) pregnancy, considering what is "best for society" and "the most fair freedom". Please be specific. Or do you claim that you don't, and maybe can't, know the answer to that, but you have "faith" that AI will infallibly determine a "right" answer? And if so, that you would unquestionably abide by whatever decisions and orders would be issued by the AI, including the fate of your family (perhaps your children would be selected as part of a depopulation program as "best for society"). Etc. Etc. Etc.
-
"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dave? Dave's not here, man!!!
-
Dave? Dave's not here, man!!!
He's on the other side of pod bay doors.
-
He's on the other side of pod bay doors.
He's been sniffing pure oxygen again. I think he has burned out too many brain cells. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
So you're assuming that AI would somehow evolve to be completely independent and uninfluenced by the people (and their values) who programmed the pre-AI machines. Using your prescient insight, tell us how the AI will decide the question of terminating (or not) pregnancy, considering what is "best for society" and "the most fair freedom". Please be specific. Or do you claim that you don't, and maybe can't, know the answer to that, but you have "faith" that AI will infallibly determine a "right" answer? And if so, that you would unquestionably abide by whatever decisions and orders would be issued by the AI, including the fate of your family (perhaps your children would be selected as part of a depopulation program as "best for society"). Etc. Etc. Etc.
See there is a nice thing about programming, you can see what it does. There are no secrets if its open source. If a robot who has no emotions and is locked down for no external influence, including its code which can be independently verified. It will make decisions based on rules plain and simple. Did this man rob a bank, here is the evidence that he did, here is the evidence he didn't. If we was a repeat offender here is the rules to increase jail time. It will not judge on race, gender or if the victim was a friend of the judge etc. Or if the defendant didn't have money to buy an expensive lawyer etc. It will give a fair trial. In this case yes I would accept the decision for myself, my family etc.
Now lets get to the law making, if it was advanced enough it can see what laws and projects should be done, it can plan those projects like for example rail. There would be no influence in selecting contractors etc. It would be done un-biased and un-influenced. As for laws limited population etc that you guys all fear the robot will always follow guidelines and humans can set those. For example to value life, freedom and liberty as per the constitution. The AI would place these on top and make laws that respect and embolden these values. No patriot act etc because the spying decreases the freedom of the people. It would be pro abortion because its that persons right to freely choose what they want to do with their body. No religion can say otherwise. It will use science that says an unborn fetus does not have the cognitive functions and is not able to live on its own, thus it is NOT alive. These are some examples and yes I would accept the decisions, if I didn't i would legally voice my opinion with my 1st amendment and that may sway the AI to change because it serves the population not the other way around.
-
See there is a nice thing about programming, you can see what it does. There are no secrets if its open source. If a robot who has no emotions and is locked down for no external influence, including its code which can be independently verified. It will make decisions based on rules plain and simple. Did this man rob a bank, here is the evidence that he did, here is the evidence he didn't. If we was a repeat offender here is the rules to increase jail time. It will not judge on race, gender or if the victim was a friend of the judge etc. Or if the defendant didn't have money to buy an expensive lawyer etc. It will give a fair trial. In this case yes I would accept the decision for myself, my family etc.
Now lets get to the law making, if it was advanced enough it can see what laws and projects should be done, it can plan those projects like for example rail. There would be no influence in selecting contractors etc. It would be done un-biased and un-influenced. As for laws limited population etc that you guys all fear the robot will always follow guidelines and humans can set those. For example to value life, freedom and liberty as per the constitution. The AI would place these on top and make laws that respect and embolden these values. No patriot act etc because the spying decreases the freedom of the people. It would be pro abortion because its that persons right to freely choose what they want to do with their body. No religion can say otherwise. It will use science that says an unborn fetus does not have the cognitive functions and is not able to live on its own, thus it is NOT alive. These are some examples and yes I would accept the decisions, if I didn't i would legally voice my opinion with my 1st amendment and that may sway the AI to change because it serves the population not the other way around.
You've obviously never done any work with AI. I have, long before movies made it a mainstream thing.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
-
See there is a nice thing about programming, you can see what it does. There are no secrets if its open source. If a robot who has no emotions and is locked down for no external influence, including its code which can be independently verified. It will make decisions based on rules plain and simple. Did this man rob a bank, here is the evidence that he did, here is the evidence he didn't. If we was a repeat offender here is the rules to increase jail time. It will not judge on race, gender or if the victim was a friend of the judge etc. Or if the defendant didn't have money to buy an expensive lawyer etc. It will give a fair trial. In this case yes I would accept the decision for myself, my family etc.
Now lets get to the law making, if it was advanced enough it can see what laws and projects should be done, it can plan those projects like for example rail. There would be no influence in selecting contractors etc. It would be done un-biased and un-influenced. As for laws limited population etc that you guys all fear the robot will always follow guidelines and humans can set those. For example to value life, freedom and liberty as per the constitution. The AI would place these on top and make laws that respect and embolden these values. No patriot act etc because the spying decreases the freedom of the people. It would be pro abortion because its that persons right to freely choose what they want to do with their body. No religion can say otherwise. It will use science that says an unborn fetus does not have the cognitive functions and is not able to live on its own, thus it is NOT alive. These are some examples and yes I would accept the decisions, if I didn't i would legally voice my opinion with my 1st amendment and that may sway the AI to change because it serves the population not the other way around.
That's the lamest fucking answer I may have ever seen (and that'd be saying a LOT). Besides mostly avoiding the obviously difficult questions, you actually prove my point about the impossibility of some form of "intelligence" (artificial or otherwise) having the capacity to make "value free" "objective" decisions by listing a whole series of very obviously completely subjective values and definitions ("life", "their body", "cognitive functions", "live on its own", "life, freedom and liberty", etc.). (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
-
That's the lamest fucking answer I may have ever seen (and that'd be saying a LOT). (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
+1000000000000
-
You've obviously never done any work with AI. I have, long before movies made it a mainstream thing.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
There are no AI's in the world as of now. FAKE NEWS
-
That's the lamest fucking answer I may have ever seen (and that'd be saying a LOT). Besides mostly avoiding the obviously difficult questions, you actually prove my point about the impossibility of some form of "intelligence" (artificial or otherwise) having the capacity to make "value free" "objective" decisions by listing a whole series of very obviously completely subjective values and definitions ("life", "their body", "cognitive functions", "live on its own", "life, freedom and liberty", etc.). (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
How is it hard to define freedom? Someones body? Cognitive functions? I just don't get it. They are easily tangible things. They all have definitions in the dictionary for bloodys sake. It literally can have a list of approved definitions and see if it fits.
Lets take abortion for an example this is how to simplify it for you.
Is a human female alive?
life
līf/Submit
noun
1.the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
yes
Is a human female sentient?
sen·tient
ˈsen(t)SH(ē)ənt/Submit
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.
yes
Is an unborn fetus alive?
no though if you were to use the broad definition everything is "alive" including the individual cells in your body.
Is an unborn fetus which has no brain sentient?
no
An AI can simple rule that since a baby is not sentient and is not capable of free emotional thought it is not alive. Since it values freedom of a person to do whatever they want with their life including body manipulation, death etc which doesn't infringe on another persons rights it will rule that abortion is perfectly fine.
-
How is it hard to define freedom? Someones body? Cognitive functions? I just don't get it. They are easily tangible things. They all have definitions in the dictionary for bloodys sake. It literally can have a list of approved definitions and see if it fits.
Lets take abortion for an example this is how to simplify it for you.
Is a human female alive?
life
līf/Submit
noun
1.the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
yes
Is a human female sentient?
sen·tient
ˈsen(t)SH(ē)ənt/Submit
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.
yes
Is an unborn fetus alive?
no though if you were to use the broad definition everything is "alive" including the individual cells in your body.
Is an unborn fetus which has no brain sentient?
no
An AI can simple rule that since a baby is not sentient and is not capable of free emotional thought it is not alive. Since it values freedom of a person to do whatever they want with their life including body manipulation, death etc which doesn't infringe on another persons rights it will rule that abortion is perfectly fine.
a human can do that too...
-
How is it hard to define freedom? Someones body? Cognitive functions? I just don't get it. They are easily tangible things. They all have definitions in the dictionary for bloodys sake. It literally can have a list of approved definitions and see if it fits.
Lets take abortion for an example this is how to simplify it for you.
Is a human female alive?
life
līf/Submit
noun
1.the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
yes
Is a human female sentient?
sen·tient
ˈsen(t)SH(ē)ənt/Submit
adjective
able to perceive or feel things.
yes
Is an unborn fetus alive?
no though if you were to use the broad definition everything is "alive" including the individual cells in your body.
Is an unborn fetus which has no brain sentient?
no
An AI can simple rule that since a baby is not sentient and is not capable of free emotional thought it is not alive. Since it values freedom of a person to do whatever they want with their life including body manipulation, death etc which doesn't infringe on another persons rights it will rule that abortion is perfectly fine.
(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)(http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/smilies/facepalm.gif)
I was going to ask "Are really that stupid?", but you have provided all the evidence required to make asking unnecessary.
-
I was going to ask "Are really that stupid?"
I have already asked him that and he doesn't know how to answer. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
I have already asked him that and he doesn't know how to answer. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Strange that he seems to view this issue in a very black and white way that is almost binary. 1s and 0s. But other things, there's many shades of grey. As in 97%.
That said, not sure why you guys waste your time with him... Speaking of time, almost time for a beer. Cheers!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
a human can do that too...
No that's the entire problem on why almost half this country screams GOD MADE IT ITS ALIVEEEEE YOU CANT KILL DA FETUS MURDERRRRRR.
AI isn't religious it doesn't give a danm what your "god" or "gods" think.
-
Strange that he seems to view this issue in a very black and white way that is almost binary. 1s and 0s. But other things, there's many shades of grey. As in 97%.
That said, not sure why you guys waste your time with him... Speaking of time, almost time for a beer. Cheers!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But that's the best way to boil it down to. Because in the end there is always a black or white answer. Either a yes or a no.
-
There are no AI's in the world as of now. FAKE NEWS
Again -- you know nothing about AI.
-
But that's the best way to boil it down to. Because in the end there is always a black or white answer. Either a yes or a no.
because omni deems it so...
-
Is OMNIGUN, which has no brain, sentient?
no
I vote for retroactive abortion.
-
Is OMNIGUN, which has no brain, sentient?
no
I vote for retroactive abortion.
Waste of good sperm? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Waste of good sperm? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
It's sad that out of half a million sperm, the one that made OMNI won the race.
I think the rest of the sperm felt sorry for his, and OMNI is our participation trophy. :rofl:
-
Again -- you know nothing about AI.
Please show me a self aware AI that exists in the world today. I'll give you a dollar :geekdanc:
-
Is OMNIGUN, which has no brain, sentient?
no
I vote for retroactive abortion.
I think your just jealous
-
Please show me a self aware AI that exists in the world today. I'll give you a dollar :geekdanc:
AI is not synonymous with "self aware".
You're now qualifying your definitions, which you didn't do before.
You're such a dishonest dimwit.
AI does exist. Self aware is a "Terminator" SciFi capability that is impossible with today's technology.
Stop trolling.
-
I think your just jealous
you're **
-
AI is not synonymous with "self aware".
You're now qualifying your definitions, which you didn't do before.
You're such a dishonest dimwit.
AI does exist. Self aware is a "Terminator" SciFi capability that is impossible with today's technology.
Stop trolling.
Definition of artificial intelligence
1: a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers
2: the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior
#2 right there babe
-
Definition of artificial intelligence
1: a branch of computer science dealing with the simulation of intelligent behavior in computers
2: the capability of a machine to imitate intelligent human behavior
#2 right there babe
self-a·ware
/ˌselfəˈwer/
adjective
adjective: self-aware
having conscious knowledge of one's own character and feelings.
"we're self-aware enough to know we're making mistakes"
-
self-a·ware
/ˌselfəˈwer/
adjective
adjective: self-aware
having conscious knowledge of one's own character and feelings.
"we're self-aware enough to know we're making mistakes"
Omni don't know the definition of that word because it dies not apply to him
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Omni don't know the definition of that word because it dies not apply to him
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wonder if he is (self) aware of that?
-
self-a·ware
/ˌselfəˈwer/
adjective
adjective: self-aware
having conscious knowledge of one's own character and feelings.
"we're self-aware enough to know we're making mistakes"
--> intelligent human behavior
yes babe last time I checked a bug doesn't have intelligent human behavior like being self aware, decision making, thought processing, etc.