Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
So Easy To Be An Atheist!
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostYou are (again) looking for absolute answers in a relative system. They don't exist. Right is defined, for each person, by how the action aligns to their underlying value structure. It's no more complicated than that. And "the majority" is nothing more than the collective sum of individual moral frameworks. It's a short-hand for saying, "most of the members of this society hold X to be a moral good." It requires individuals to hold that position to get to "a majority." And even if everyone in the country said, "X is moral," if my moral framework says it is immoral, I will continue to see it as immoral.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostAnd you're wrong.
They define what is right for them. It does not define what is right for me.
It matters because I am the one that defines what is right for me. No one can take that power away from me.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is just stupid Jim, you don't get to define what is moral or not. If the powerful minority believe it is a moral good to take advantage of others then it is a moral good to them, your disagreement is meaningless, your definition of moral is meaningless. And no more valid than theirs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWhat you just can't seem to grasp seer is that it is not just a matter of opinion, behaviors that do not serve the best interests of society as a whole, thus the individual members thereof, are based on reason, not arbitrary opinion. That murder, that robbery, etc. etc. are not "good" behaviors, that such behaviors do not serve the best interests of the whole of society, is not just opinion, it's a logical fact.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is all very fine, until they jail you. So legally they get to decide.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostLegally is not morally. I don't give a fig who or what decides they can punish me for not thinking like them.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostMost law is grounded in morality,
Originally posted by seer View Postbut logically you don't have a leg to stand on, I think that is one reason why the founders linked our rights in God.
"The founders said so" doesn't hold a great deal of weight for me. They were men. Like all men, they can be wrong. I'm more interested in why, so we can toss out the bad and keep the good.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post...and legal is still not equal to moral. You are conflating two different domains.
I'm not having any logical problems that I can see. But you seem to be - continually assessing relative systems on absolute terms. As for the founders, they were the product of their age. The vast majority were religious men and specifically Christians. Jefferson appears to be the great exception. They also believed voting rights should be extended to landed white men only. Should we go back to that because "that's what the founders thought? I think not. Today we extend voting rights to all citizens, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religious belief, etc.
"The founders said so" doesn't hold a great deal of weight for me. They were men. Like all men, they can be wrong. I'm more interested in why, so we can toss out the bad and keep the good.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAgain, most law is grounded in moral belief. We think that rape is wrong (a moral description) so we make laws against that moral wrong.
Originally posted by seer View PostSo what is your point?
Originally posted by seer View PostThe ideal that rights are grounded in God, not in our fellow man, is still valid.
Originally posted by seer View PostThey offered a rationale for why rights are not culturally relative.
Originally posted by seer View PostWhich also gave men a moral impetus for resisting those who would trample said rights.
Originally posted by seer View PostRight, the Constitution has little meaning for leftists...The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSome law is so based. A great deal is not. The point is - legal and moral are two different domains. You're conflating them in a way that does not bolster your argument about "might makes right."
What it has always been - that you are insisting on a moral model you a) cannot show exists, and b) cannot show is superior to moral subjectivism/relativism without falling into the trap of continually repeating the definition of the terms.
No. It fails is you cannot show god exists - and it fails because you cannot show that god's moral framework is any more "binding" on me that that of any other individual - without collapsing to a "might makes right" argument.
They offer no such rationale at all. You don't seem to understand, Seer, that you have yet to make a rational argument for moral absolutism/objectivism. You think you have - that much is clear, but you have never done anything more than repeatedly point out the definition of the terms "relative/subjective" and "absolute/objective." You've never made the case for morality having to be absolute/objective.
Any man has an impetus to resist those who would trample rights. The problem with a "god-centered" claim is that it creates significant resistance to change. "God says so" was used to defend slavery, resist women's suffrage, and is now being used to resist LGBTQ rights and freedoms. "God wants X" is a powerful statement for those who still believe in god. Unfortunately, what is being reflected is not usually what "god" wants - it's a resistance to change that those who don't want the change want.
Actually, the Constitution holds significant meaning for me. Maybe it's because I'm not actually a leftist. But if someone wants to defend the Constitution, they will need to do so on terms more substantial than "that's what the founders wanted." Only a fool blindly follows a mistaken man into folly.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThink of all the laws that relate to behavior. They are originally grounded in moral opinion.
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd I have been arguing that might makes right per se, but that right defines right - which it does.
Originally posted by seer View PostRight and you can not objectively or logically make the case as to why your moral opinion is correct if you disagreed with the majority, besides claiming that you value what you value.
Seer, I have said this before, and I think you still don't get it. You're like the guy saying, "your green car is not blue." We already know a green car is not blue. You have not shown that blue cars are in some measurable way better than green ones. You just keep reminding us that "green is not blue." I agree - 100% - subjective/relative is not objective/absolute. No disagreement. No argument. Now make the case that subjective/relative is WORSE than objective/absolute without merely reminding us that they are not the same thing.
Originally posted by seer View PostI'm just pointing out why the Founders grounded rights in God, your unbelief, again, is immaterial.
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat? Obviously you have not read much of the Founders or Locke who they relied on.
Originally posted by seer View PostThat is all very nice, and rather meaning less, since your opinion has no objective reality.
Originally posted by seer View PostWell you said that the Founders did not have a great deal of weight for you. Typical leftist response.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostMost law is grounded in morality, but logically you don't have a leg to stand on, I think that is one reason why the founders linked our rights in God.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostSo I have no idea how you characterize the difference between "defines" and "makes." In essence, you appear to be arguing that whoever has the most power gets to declare what is "moral." Whoever has the most power gets to enforce their vision of what is moral and the weaker do not have the power to override that. But enforcing moral and defining moral (or making moral) are not the same thing. I repeat, the most powerful being in existence may be able to punish me for not thinking as they do - they cannot override my moral framework. The most they can do is kill me and cause my moral framework to cease to exist.
Why would anyone try to make an objective claim about a subjective framework? Again, you fall into the trap of measuring a relative/subjective reality against your vision of an absolute/objective framework - which you cannot even show exists, or show why it is better than a relative/subjective one. All you do is continually complain that subjective/relative frameworks cannot make objective statements. We know that already...they're subjective.
Seer, I have said this before, and I think you still don't get it. You're like the guy saying, "your green car is not blue." We already know a green car is not blue. You have not shown that blue cars are in some measurable way better than green ones. You just keep reminding us that "green is not blue." I agree - 100% - subjective/relative is not objective/absolute. No disagreement. No argument. Now make the case that subjective/relative is WORSE than objective/absolute without merely reminding us that they are not the same thing.
Actually, I have - and my statement stands. See above.
No - that is NOT what I said. What I said was the argument, "because the founders said so" is not a rational or cogent argument. It is an appeal to authority. I am more interested in why they said it than that they said it. Any man, at any time, can be wrong. Anyone who swallows an argument solely because of the identity of the speaker is accepting positions on the basis of authority and has stopped thinking rationally or critically. The founders said many things I disagree with. They also said many things I agree with. I agree on the basis of the strength of the arguments - not the identity of the speaker.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWell yes, those with the most power do get to define what is right,
Originally posted by seer View Postand you are correct they can not make you believe what they believe. But so what, in that instance what you believe has no moral weight, or influence.
Originally posted by seer View PostNo, what I'm saying is that you have no logical ground to argue against what the powerful deem as moral or not.
Originally posted by seer View PostYou need to read Locke's second treatise of government, which had a profound effect on the Founders. He grounded human and property rights in God. The unalienable Rights of the Founders were not possible apart from God. And this gave us a moral and logical rationale to throw off the tyranny of the King.
Originally posted by seer View PostWell I can find no other source for unalienable human rights than God, can you?
We pay lip service to "inalienable rights," but they do not exist in actuality.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
404 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
317 responses
1,405 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 07:19 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
227 responses
1,114 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:11 AM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
370 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment