Is The Concept Of Human Dignity...

[Machinist]

From an atheistic perspective, I would have no rationale for anything of value. Any value that I project is equally meaningless. It comes from me, originates in me, and after i'm gone I vanish forever. These values that I created also vanish. Sure, they are passed down to others. But is that enough to have some rationale for value?

[Machinist]

the Spirit is the non material aspect to us humans. I've heard that there is no evidence that consciousness even originates in the brain. That's going to be relevant downstream. For now, we are just talking about this non-material aspect of the human, the part that (i hope i'm stating this correctly), that can think, and abstract and ponder actions that have moral sentiments attached to them, and that can add and subtract and remember names and faces, and can reflect on the very notion and idea of "perfection" for instance, and this thing, this non-material aspect can can ponder memes for instance, and have a discussion about memes and infinity and zero and history. This part of the human...the spirit, from whence does it come?

Is it some emergent property from all the infinite and complex computations of the quantum universe we live in? I could go with that I suppose. Kinda neat.

I think the argument that Seer is making here is a good one, and I especially like when Stoic chimes in with fresh perspective.

Thus far, it seems to me that there is a reluctance to confess that yes, the logical implications that there being no God to be accountable to for our actions, is a free for all orgy-istic cult of doom.

I mean it really really should be, you know, just go and do what pleases you with no regard to anyone other than your self. Steal kill rob pillage, whatever it takes to have as much pleasure and experience in your life because after your dead your memories will infinitely vanish. Now that....is the logical implication of what SHOULD be the behaviour of anyone who is atheist, that is, if their actions and feelings were guided solely by continually analyzing logical axions and making sure that their actions are in alignment with these deductions. . Stoic however makes a good argument that humans simply are not guided so much by logic as they are emotion.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I don't believe I am mistaken.

I regret that you are. There is a marked distinction between what I wrote and the statements that you have made and upon which you consider we have reached agreement.

I think you're just trying to find disagreement where there is none.

You are suggesting that I have written things which I have not.

That and just fastidious in general

I would consider the word “precise” to be more apposite.

I remind you again that "religious works" may include texts that are not deemed to be sacred. Nor despite your attempt to suggest that we are in accord have I ever written that I consider religions and theologies to be interpretive frameworks. That statement was made by you when you wrote “All religions and their theologies are interpretive frameworks." I am still waiting for you to defend/explain that comment. However, I am beginning to suspect that, regardless of requests, you will continue to avoid doing so.

[Diogenes]

You are mistaken if you think that.

I don't believe I am mistaken. I think you're just trying to find disagreement where there is none. That and just fastidious in general

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So we agree that theology is a subjective interpretation of religious works

You are mistaken if you think that.

I wrote that "Theology by its very definition is a subjective method which is premised on the interpretation of words found in texts deemed to be sacred. [my emphasis].

That is by no means the same as your comment that "theology is a subjective interpretation of religious works". It should be noted that "religious works" may [and often does] include texts which are not deemed to be sacred.

and religions are interpretive frameworks to explain human existence et al.

I have never written that I consider religions and theologies to be interpretive frameworks. You made the statement that "All religions and their theologies are interpretive frameworks." I am still waiting for you to defend/explain that comment.

With regard to religions and theologies I wrote that "I would contend they are attempts to explain human existence, origins, and purpose within the physical world, in other words the basic triad of birth, copulation, and death." [my emphasis]

[Diogenes]

Not quite.

You wrote: "All religions and their theologies are interpretive frameworks." I questioned that statement and you have yet to explain and/or defend it.

As you said

I would contend that they are attempts to explain human existence, origins, and purpose within the physical world,

So we agree that theology is a subjective interpretation of religious works and religions are interpretive frameworks to explain human existence et al.

I'm glad we can come to an agreement on something.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

We finally agree on something

Not quite.

You wrote: "All religions and their theologies are interpretive frameworks." I questioned that statement and you have yet to explain and/or defend it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No, I just can't believe you are really this dense:

You used the phrase "abstract moral terms". What is an abstract moral? And what are its "terms"?

[Diogenes]

Theology by its very definition, is a subjective method which is premised on the interpretation of words found in texts deemed to be sacred.

All religions and their theologies are interpretive frameworks.

We finally agree on something

[seer]

Once again you dodge the question.

No, I just can't believe you are really this dense:

Abstract:

existing as an idea, feeling, or quality, not as a material object:

Truth and beauty are abstract concepts.

Moral ideals are non material abstract concepts.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Really Hypatia, what is the point of you?

Once again you dodge the question.

[seer]

You have not made your position clear. You have posted comments from some wiki articles and made a reference to "abstract moral terms". What is abstract morality? Can you define it?

Really Hypatia, what is the point of you?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"Subjective opinion" is redundant.

Theology by its very definition, is a subjective method which is premised on the interpretation of words found in texts deemed to be sacred.

I never presented any of the sources or concepts as empirically factual.

I have never stated that you have done so.

All religions and their theologies are interpretive frameworks.

Are they? And in what specific respect[s]? I would contend that they are attempts to explain human existence, origins, and purpose within the physical world, in other words the basic triad of birth, copulation, and death.

[Diogenes]

All of which, like Gregory of Nyssa's Imago Dei, are nothing but subjective theological opinion.

"Subjective opinion" is redundant.

I never presented any of the sources or concepts as empirically factual. All religions and their theologies are interpretive frameworks.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It's not like the Summa, the Roman Catholic Catechism, or Ligonier (R. C. Sproul) are readily accessible sources of information. If one wanted Jewish information, the term for which to search would be "b'tzelem Elohim".

All of which, like Gregory of Nyssa's Imago Dei, are nothing but subjective theological opinion.