Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does anybody know what this LBEAR person is trying to say? The Bible should not be considered a reference for absolute morality, but that God should?
I know I caught a few zzzs in Sunday school but I always was under the impression the Bible was the living document that is used to pass on the teachings of God.
Or is LBEAR a Muslim or Buddhist flying under the radar?
Dude is heading off the tracks pretty quickly.
Yeah, this conversation has turned into a level of philosophy that may as well move into the philosophy or religion forum. I'm already bored w/this thread.
Yeah, this conversation has turned into a level of philosophy that may as well move into the philosophy or religion forum. I'm already bored w/this thread.
Frankly, I'm amazed it HASN'T been moved to the Religion forum some time ago.HEAVEN KNOWS it's way overdue...I only HOPE to GOD that we can bring this subject to some sort of close, sometime between now and JUDGEMENT DAY......(Excuse me for now...I'm getting a throbbing pain in my TEMPLES)......
If it is true that there is no point in talking about morality with a religious person, then I think it must be true that there is no room within religion for ethics. Which would seem odd given the amount of time and effort that religious apologists have invested in it....
No, I didn't say that. I said that there is no point trying to use logic to dispel faith. A Chrsitian believer accepts, as an article of faith, that there is a God and that Morality arises from an acceptance of God's word. However, God's word, to the faithful Chrstian, IS ethics, and they will not accept any other defining paramaters for the concept. Religion has a great deal of room for ethics, but no room at all for the non-theological pursuance of the origin of ethics. In fact, religion has no room at all for argument.
Although Ethics is the term philosophers use to encompass morality, in modern English it has a quite different meaning. Ethics is now used to refer to conformity with agreed-upon standards in a less-then-universal arena (such as law, medicine, business), and may only by coincidence be congruent with morality.
Frankly, I'm amazed it HASN'T been moved to the Religion forum some time ago.
Because what atheists think and do is not an issue of religion. There is always an ongoing philosophical discussion amount atheists about all kinds of things that the faithful accept without inspection. To move this topic to "Religion" would close the door on it. It would be moved to a forum that atheists do not visit, so it would then be a topic of people talking about other people.
Atheists think what they think, without reference to religion, wo why should it be moved to "Religion"?
Because what atheists think and do is not an issue of religion. There is always an ongoing philosophical discussion amount atheists about all kinds of things that the faithful accept without inspection. To move this topic to "Religion" would close the door on it. It would be moved to a forum that atheists do not visit, so it would then be a topic of people talking about other people.
Atheists think what they think, without reference to religion, wo why should it be moved to "Religion"?
I agree with some of your points, but I'm an Atheist and I frequent the religion and philosophy forum... there's even an Atheist and Agnostic subforum...
The Positive Law theory was made famous by the German atheist, Freidrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). He is famous for the "God is dead and we killed him" phrase. Nietzsche believed that there was no meaning in life. Charles Darwin was also behind the Positive Law theory, as was Karl Marx and others.
Beliefs have consequences. Legal Positivism at its core believes that humans are essentially animals and acts like child molestation, pedophilia, rape, murder, etc., are never morally wrong, legally they can be "illegal" if the government makes it against the law, but morally they cannot be wrong as there is no absolute morality.
If the government allows these acts (as it did with Nazi Germany & other governments throughout time) and makes them "legal", then the sky is the limit. Raping a 5 year old girl or murdering a mother is deemed legal and not immoral.
QUESTION:
How did the United States accuse the nation (Nazi Germany) during the Nuremberg Trials of "violating human rights", if governments decide what is legal or illegal?
The Germans were simply following the atheistic Positive Law theory. Remember, the German defense was that in Germany and per German law, it was completely "legal" to murder & torture Jews and those deemed by the government. It was perfectly "legal" to rape a little Jewish girl. They did NO WRONG and did nothing that was "immoral", as they were simply following German laws in exterminating the Jews.
LBear, based on your own statements you have one basic task, and one alone, without which everything else is just mental masturbation. That is to prove that God exists. If you cannot do that, dispense with all the Nietzsche/Nazi crap. You can argue for Natural Law once you have cleared the bar of establishing God's existence. You can't reverse the process and infer God from the fact that Positive Law has consequences you don't like. Even if you're justified in not liking them.
Incidentally, the organic/interactionist/dialectical model of moral development of which I spoke has zero to do with the Nazi state. The Nazi state became what it was by exempting itself from, and placing itself above, the moral norms of German society. That's what totalitarian states do. The difference between "positive law" Nazi Germany and, say, "positive law" modern Sweden (which is a lot more atheistic than Germany was) has nothing to do with positive law and everything to do with one being totalitarian and the other not being totalitarian.
QUESTION:
How did the United States accuse the nation (Nazi Germany) during the Nuremberg Trials of "violating human rights", if governments decide what is legal or illegal?
Legality and morality are two different things.
As humans we have empathy, and our intelligence gives us (most of us) the ability to see from others' perspectives. The golden rule is a standard that is naturally grasped, and is completely secular. Most of us desire a safe, cohesive society, and respecting others so that they respect you is a way to actively help create such a society. As we see what rights we feel we deserve, our empathy lets us see that others deserve those rights as well. Most importantly, if we live in a society where it is seen as wrong to rape and murder, it would reduce the likelihood that we would be victims.
The society and family a person grows up in has a lot to do with the person's morals, as well as any major personal experiences. But then the person matures and develops a sense of self, along with a personal morality code that is no longer determined by outside sources. Since morality is unique for each person, how could it be universal, or absolute?
But for the question, if you want to think of it only in terms of government-mandated morality, the US has promoted its own values on other countries many times other than Nuremberg... So what's the difference?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
