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.
You are right. You were citing Sharya law as an example of what you consider unjust. Mind, though, that is based on religion, not relative human morality.
The argument (which went on elsewhere is is off - topic here, but never mind ) is that the law is supposed to be based on what is considered best, not that it is best because it is law. Your examples of Bible - day law is a good example of laws that have force, but are not necessarily good just because they are law.
The constitution is good law because what is in it is good. It is not good just because it is in the constitution. This has been explained and you appear to have your argument back to front. Separation of church and state is a good idea. That is why it is upheld. That it is constitutional law allows it to be upheld against Bible- bods who want it removed so they can hi-jack government to push their religious agenda.
I wonder if they asked Dred Scott, or Native Americans back in the day, or booze drinkers during Constitutional prohibition, if they'd concur with you on that statement?
"What is best" from a "human morality" standpoint is completely subjective...as is "what is good" or a "good idea".
MY POINT...AGAIN: Except as to inquires of "legality"..."The Law" (ANY law, at/from ANY time, from ANY source) cannot be used as a valid premise to draw a conclusion in support of, or opposition to, a issue...since laws are ever chancing, ever differing, arbitrary, capricious, and often contradictory, unfair, and unjust.
It is pretty much subjective, yes. That is is agreed. Yet we come to the same conclusion in the end - trying to get the best life for everyone and having laws to stop others ruining it. That is what separation of church and state is about.
While a supposedly god -given unchanging law seems better, in fact it is not. It is arbitrarily imposed. It replaces what is seen to be good with whatever the deity says, it is inflexible while at the same time it changes all the time.
Give me subjective human law any time.
And yes, the law only serves to say what is the law. It should be observed, because that is what laws are for - even bad ones. If we don't like them, repeal them, don't break them. They are not to be used in arguments as though they were some kind of universal evidential fact, and I don't recall anyone doing so. Separation of church and state is - I have already explained this - a good thing for the reasons I suggested. That is why it is in constitution and law. It is not good because it is in the law and constitution.
Can you really not follow this argument, or is it just more sand down the atheist neck?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-23-2013 at 04:55 AM..
It is pretty much subjective, yes. That is is agreed. Yet we come to the same conclusion in the end - trying to get the best life for everyone and having laws to stop others ruining it. That is what separation of church and state is about.
While a supposedly god -given unchanging law seems better, in fact it is not. It is arbitrarily imposed. It replaces what is seen to be good with whatever the deity says, it is inflexible while at the same time it changes all the time.
Give me subjective human law any time.
And yes, the law only serves to say what is the law. It should be observed, because that is what laws are for - even bad ones. If we don't like them, repeal them, don't break them. They are not to be used in arguments as though they were some kind of universal evidential fact, and i don't recall anyone doing so. Separation of church and state is - I have already explained this - a good thing for the reasons I suggested. That is why it is in constitution and law. It is not good because it is in the law and constitution.
Can you really not follow this argument, or is it just more sand down the atheist neck?
I "follow the argument" being used just fine...and I am pointing out the flaws in it.
Any "sand down the collar" is a by-product and not done intentionally with this...I'm serious about it.
See Arq...you proclaim the U.S. Law about "separation of church and state" as "a good thing"...and I happen to agree...but that is really just our subjective opinion.
The Law is often brandished as evidence of actions being "right" or "wrong" beyond just legality. The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution being a favorite around here because of it containing regulation of the government and its proscription from establishing or banning the free exercise of religion.
Of course...it then usually grows into debates about the interpretation of the laws...and that mucks it up even more.
For example: As I have previously stated...I'd prefer an interpretation of the 1st Amendment such that the government can't have any input what-so-ever about religious establishment or free exercise. Only deal with it relative to other laws...such as trespassing, vandalism, or violence. They should not even consider the "religious meaning" to anything like crosses, stars, or statues...they shouldn't be involved with that stuff AT ALL. This is just my subjective opinion on it, obviously.
BUT...relative to the OP here. If there are those that want to use "The Law" as a premise to draw conclusions off of to settle arguments...the issue of whether the Bible "is divine in nature and not human in origin", has (from a legal standpoint) already been determined by the U.S. Government. And they have determined and declared that it IS "The Word of God"-- Year of the Bible, Public Law 97-280
Those that use "law citing" to argue whether an action is "right" or "wrong"...can file that for future reference to clear up any confusion as to the "status" of The Bible...at least according to the U.S. Government Law.
MY POINT...AGAIN: Except as to inquires of "legality"..."The Law" (ANY law, at/from ANY time, from ANY source) cannot be used as a valid premise to draw a conclusion in support of, or opposition to, a issue...since laws are ever chancing, ever differing, arbitrary, capricious, and often contradictory, unfair, and unjust.
Hmm, I have a disagreement here, though perhaps it stems from your wording. I tend to be rather precise in that regard and therefore will sometimes call others to the carpet if their language isn't precise enough.
The example here that I'm referrng to is your statement that the law cannot "be used to draw a conclusion in support of, or opposition to, an issue."
I would have agreed with you if you had said instead that the law cannot be used "to draw a conclusion on what is right and wrong."
But to say that the law cannot be used to support an argument regarding what is right and wrong is where I disagree. I would argue that the law is always evolving, and that evolution has gradually but consistently trended toward more freedom, less oppression, more tolerance, and less arbitrary discrimination. Sure, we can go back 150 years and point to the Constitution and its pro-slavery laws, but those laws don't exist now. That is a prime example of legal evolution toward a better society.
I know, you're probably going to say that even saying something is "better" is only subjective. Well, there too, I would disagree (and my apologies if I'm creating a strawman here but sometimes I like heading off certain counter-arguments at the pass, so to speak). I would disagree with "better" being wholly subjective because of the condition of being human. People in other states, other countries, or even on other continents are not alien beings whose psychology and sociology are a big mystery to us. We can argue whether or not the Iraqi people really wanted a democratic government - perhaps they were comfortable with a dictatorship.
BUT ... it can be safely said that no woman wants to be raped or live in a nation that sanctions state-sponsored rape gangs. No one wants to be imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. No one wants to be tortured, beaten, discriminated against, ridiculed, or exiled. No one wants to live in fear, no one wants to live in a war zone, no one wants to see their family punished for their own personal transgressions.
In fact, there are many things that are universal about being human, and we can gauge the rightness and wrongness of our laws based on how well they run parallel with what human beings want. Therefore, we can look at the Constitution and say laws allowing slavery were wrong because, again, no one wants to be a slave. But when those laws were repealed, those particular laws were right because it made the blacks free. I know we can argue that Southerns may not have seen it as right - but that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the law fosters a condition that is almost universally desired. Since I doubt you will ever hear a child say, "I want to grow up to be a slave," I think anti-slavery laws can be considered "right" both morally and legally.
Keep in mind that cultural differences in this case are irrelevant because I can't think of any cultures where women want to be raped or a culture that considers sado-masochism as "quality time" on family night. I can't think of any culture where people beg to be kidnapped and held involuntarily because it's so much fun, or any culture where different demographic groups beg and plead to be discriminated against.
There are just certain universal truths to being human, and as I said, the more a society's laws foster and support those truths, the more one can say that those laws are "right."
I "follow the argument" being used just fine...and I am pointing out the flaws in it.
Any "sand down the collar" is a by-product and not done intentionally with this...I'm serious about it.
See Arq...you proclaim the U.S. Law about "separation of church and state" as "a good thing"...and I happen to agree...but that is really just our subjective opinion.
The Law is often brandished as evidence of actions being "right" or "wrong" beyond just legality. The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution being a favorite around here because of it containing regulation of the government and its proscription from establishing or banning the free exercise of religion.
Of course...it then usually grows into debates about the interpretation of the laws...and that mucks it up even more.
For example: As I have previously stated...I'd prefer an interpretation of the 1st Amendment such that the government can't have any input what-so-ever about religious establishment or free exercise. Only deal with it relative to other laws...such as trespassing, vandalism, or violence. They should not even consider the "religious meaning" to anything like crosses, stars, or statues...they shouldn't be involved with that stuff AT ALL. This is just my subjective opinion on it, obviously.
BUT...relative to the OP here. If there are those that want to use "The Law" as a premise to draw conclusions off of to settle arguments...the issue of whether the Bible "is divine in nature and not human in origin", has (from a legal standpoint) already been determined by the U.S. Government. And they have determined and declared that it IS "The Word of God"-- Year of the Bible, Public Law 97-280
Those that use "law citing" to argue whether an action is "right" or "wrong"...can file that for future reference to clear up any confusion as to the "status" of The Bible...at least according to the U.S. Government Law.
Well, I can't be held responsible, nor can the Law or constitution, for those who (so you claim) use law as evidence of right or wrong. The fact is that subjective human morality, held sound enough to be made into law or constitution is the best we have and far better than a postulated God -given absolute law.
The point of the law is that is has teeth, as people can't be trusted to do what the law says without some muscle. That is why your suspect desire that the government can't have any input at all is (intentionally or not ) a charter for religion to get away with whatever it likes.
I have already dealt with the year of the Bible. It was a law, which should never have been. That's what happens with subjective human morality. You can get away with stuff like that all the time you have a nation with half the populace confusing Bible- belief with patriotism.
Give it a decade or so, and no president will be again able to get away with that sort of thing.
Now, I'd say we have spent enough time on your continued efforts to prove that chalk is cheese and we have done with the OP topic. The Bible is not historically reliable, eyewitness or a collection of documents having any reasonable claim to legal, factual or moral force. End of thread, I'd say.
Well, I can't be held responsible, nor can the Law or constitution, for those who (so you claim) use law as evidence of right or wrong. The fact is that subjective human morality, held sound enough to be made into law or constitution is the best we have and far better than a postulated God -given absolute law.
The point of the law is that is has teeth, as people can't be trusted to do what the law says without some muscle. That is why your suspect desire that the government can't have any input at all is (intentionally or not ) a charter for religion to get away with whatever it likes.
I have already dealt with the year of the Bible. It was a law, which should never have been. That's what happens with subjective human morality. You can get away with stuff like that all the time you have a nation with half the populace confusing Bible- belief with patriotism.
Give it a decade or so, and no president will be again able to get away with that sort of thing.
Now, I'd say we have spent enough time on your continued efforts to prove that chalk is cheese and we have done with the OP topic. The Bible is not historically reliable, eyewitness or a collection of documents having any reasonable claim to legal, factual or moral force. End of thread, I'd say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Hmm, I have a disagreement here, though perhaps it stems from your wording. I tend to be rather precise in that regard and therefore will sometimes call others to the carpet if their language isn't precise enough.
The example here that I'm referrng to is your statement that the law cannot "be used to draw a conclusion in support of, or opposition to, an issue."
I would have agreed with you if you had said instead that the law cannot be used "to draw a conclusion on what is right and wrong."
But to say that the law cannot be used to support an argument regarding what is right and wrong is where I disagree. I would argue that the law is always evolving, and that evolution has gradually but consistently trended toward more freedom, less oppression, more tolerance, and less arbitrary discrimination. Sure, we can go back 150 years and point to the Constitution and its pro-slavery laws, but those laws don't exist now. That is a prime example of legal evolution toward a better society.
I know, you're probably going to say that even saying something is "better" is only subjective. Well, there too, I would disagree (and my apologies if I'm creating a strawman here but sometimes I like heading off certain counter-arguments at the pass, so to speak). I would disagree with "better" being wholly subjective because of the condition of being human. People in other states, other countries, or even on other continents are not alien beings whose psychology and sociology are a big mystery to us. We can argue whether or not the Iraqi people really wanted a democratic government - perhaps they were comfortable with a dictatorship.
BUT ... it can be safely said that no woman wants to be raped or live in a nation that sanctions state-sponsored rape gangs. No one wants to be imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. No one wants to be tortured, beaten, discriminated against, ridiculed, or exiled. No one wants to live in fear, no one wants to live in a war zone, no one wants to see their family punished for their own personal transgressions.
In fact, there are many things that are universal about being human, and we can gauge the rightness and wrongness of our laws based on how well they run parallel with what human beings want. Therefore, we can look at the Constitution and say laws allowing slavery were wrong because, again, no one wants to be a slave. But when those laws were repealed, those particular laws were right because it made the blacks free. I know we can argue that Southerns may not have seen it as right - but that doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the law fosters a condition that is almost universally desired. Since I doubt you will ever hear a child say, "I want to grow up to be a slave," I think anti-slavery laws can be considered "right" both morally and legally.
Keep in mind that cultural differences in this case are irrelevant because I can't think of any cultures where women want to be raped or a culture that considers sado-masochism as "quality time" on family night. I can't think of any culture where people beg to be kidnapped and held involuntarily because it's so much fun, or any culture where different demographic groups beg and plead to be discriminated against.
There are just certain universal truths to being human, and as I said, the more a society's laws foster and support those truths, the more one can say that those laws are "right."
You are keying off the wrong words Shirina.
The key part is, "The Law" (ANY law, at/from ANY time, from ANY source) cannot be used as a valid premise to draw a conclusion".
Except to draw a conclusion as to "legality"..."The Law" is not a "valid premise".
Of course...I endorse and use "Logical Fallacy" in my arguments...so, I actually have no problem with it.
But...for those that call me on it...or claim it lacks merit...they can't then employ "Logical Fallacy" by using a flawed premise to draw a conclusion off of.
Pedigree Logic dictates perfectly valid premises...following an argument of flawless form...that then assures a true conclusion.
"The Law" is a flawed premise to determine anything but legality. And even then...it is noted that what's legal changes...from place to place and time to time. So...it messes up logically right there.
I agree with all the reasons put forth that it can have value outside of those dictates...the logical deficiencies not withstanding. And, of course I would...I've never limited my arguments to remain within Purely Logical boundaries. That's way too short a leash for someone like me.
So...based upon current U.S. Law...the Bible IS "divine in nature and not human in origin". I presented that to show how poor an arbiter "The Law" is.
Arequipa is correct...I believe I(we) have sufficiently wrung just about all the possible mileage out of this thread.
Well my pastor posted it on FB and I just don't want to be a sheep and believe everythign he says. I do want to have faith in God and believe what I'm supposed to believe about Him to please Him. So if it makes Him happy for me to believe His word is true, then I guess I believe it's true. I know that sounds like a lame answer.
Do you think the God Who created the entire universe and all that is in it is incapable of articulating to humans what He wanted written down?
And do you think that the God Who created the entire universe and Who knows all that has occurred from the beginning is incapable of revealing to those writers what actually occurred i.e., the creation account? or will occur such as prophetic statements etc.?
God is not only capable; that's exactly what He did.
You are keying off the wrong words Shirina.
The key part is, "The Law" (ANY law, at/from ANY time, from ANY source) cannot be used as a valid premise to draw a conclusion".
Except to draw a conclusion as to "legality"..."The Law" is not a "valid premise".
Of course...I endorse and use "Logical Fallacy" in my arguments...so, I actually have no problem with it.
But...for those that call me on it...or claim it lacks merit...they can't then employ "Logical Fallacy" by using a flawed premise to draw a conclusion off of.
Pedigree Logic dictates perfectly valid premises...following an argument of flawless form...that then assures a true conclusion.
"The Law" is a flawed premise to determine anything but legality. And even then...it is noted that what's legal changes...from place to place and time to time. So...it messes up logically right there.
I agree with all the reasons put forth that it can have value outside of those dictates...the logical deficiencies not withstanding. And, of course I would...I've never limited my arguments to remain within Purely Logical boundaries. That's way too short a leash for someone like me.
So...based upon current U.S. Law...the Bible IS "divine in nature and not human in origin". I presented that to show how poor an arbiter "The Law" is.
Arequipa is correct...I believe I(we) have sufficiently wrung just about all the possible mileage out of this thread.
I get exactly where you are going with this. However, Shirina has a point, as only struck me later: while you are correct that it is a false argument (if not a logical fallacy) to use what is in law to prove that something is right or wrong - because it is only based on a relative and subjective human morality, as you point out - Shirina mas a valid point in that what is passed into law can be assumed to have been thought about, discussed and taken to have passed a lot of the tests applied to such matters before being accepted as a law, so there is some authority behind it, just as there is with science, given that science doesn't know everything nor claim to, and the only reason it is not so subjective as Law, morals and ethics is because it is about things that exist apart from humans.
It was pointed out that Bible day was passed into law. I haven't looked it up, but I gather it was pushed through by religiously -minded presidents who saw the authority of religion as superior to the authority of the constitution.
It was made law, but it was bad law and I hope it is repealed law. We have some here. The pass was sold early on when motor - cyclists were excused wearing helmets because of religious reasons. That was wrong. They should have been told 'Turban or Motor -bike. Not both'.
The more minor squabbles about dress code, well, a point can be stretched there. But the same now applies with driving licenses. No unveil, no licence. The question in schools is more open to discussion, but a few atheist teachers turning up in pirate costume should make the point.
The UK, is sadly uneducated in how to deal with the pervasive influence of religion.
Do you think the God Who created the entire universe and all that is in it is incapable of articulating to humans what He wanted written down?
And do you think that the God Who created the entire universe and Who knows all that has occurred from the beginning is incapable of revealing to those writers what actually occurred i.e., the creation account? or will occur such as prophetic statements etc.?
God is not only capable; that's exactly what He did.
The alternative view is that such a god is indeed capable of telling humans correctly what took place. It it turns out that it didn't, and in fact most of the stuff in the book as supposedly dictated didn't, then the conclusion is that the book was written down by humans but not articulated by a god.
That suggests that either there is no god there, or it didn't articulate anything of that book to humans.
You don't need to tell me that you disagree and you deny all of the supposed facts that undermine the Bible. I'm only posting this just to register that your assurances to us, that the Bible is for sure truth, carry no force whatsoever.
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.
) is that the law is supposed to be based on what is considered best, not that it is best because it is law. Your examples of Bible - day law is a good example of laws that have force, but are not necessarily good just because they are law. 
) a charter for religion to get away with whatever it likes. 
