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.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadgates
So if he didn't get his butt kicked for stealing (and then making a self preservation decision that stealing is bad) then what?
Then people steal until eventually enough are caught and get their butts kicked and a moral code develops from that. How do you think acceptable behavior becomes defined in a society?
Making this life as good as you can make it is a worthwhile goal.
I clean my house because it makes my life better.
I read books and educate myself because it makes my life better.
I work in the garden, growing flowers and veggies, because it makes my life better.
I clean out my closets and give away things because it makes my life, and hopefully others' lives, better.
I support the local museums, because it makes life better.
I write and play music and dance, because it makes life better.
I enjoy my friends and family, because it makes life better.
Don't we all try to make this life as good as we can make it?
There is nothing wrong with trying to make life better. But, a materialistic worldview is dangerous.
The problem with believing that this life is all there is, isn't in how it affects the decisions you make for yourself. It is in how it affects your views of society. More specifically, the concept of "progress".
Lets be clear here, the whole notion of progress, is a modern idea, mostly as a byproduct of industrial capitalism. And without "The State", it would be difficult to enforce property rights, and protect patents, or otherwise encourage large-scale industry and innovation.
In short, "progress" most-likely requires the state.
But more importantly, if the object of humanity is to be working towards progress, then what do we do about those people who are "standing in the way of progress"? Doesn't the desire for progress, necessarily become hostile to individual freedom?
Even more, the atheist view, tends to be obsessed with "justice". Because if this life is all there is, then if there is no justice in this life, then there is no justice.
An atheist tends to become obsessed with economic and social opportunity for the disadvantaged. Justice thus transforms into economic justice, which transforms into materialism.
A "Christian" nation can operate under the republican form better than an indirect democratic form of government.
“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
“I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man.”
- - - Samuel Adams;
Statement of (14 April 1785), quoted in The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) edited by Harry A. Cushing http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_Adams
"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854) http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_lincoln
What's the difference?
❏ In America, if you have Creator endowed rights, you’re under the republican form of government.
❏ If instead of endowed rights, you have mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government.
❏ If you have socialist obligations, you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA.
= = = =
NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324
NATURAL LIBERTY is the right which nature gives to all mankind, of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consonant to their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and that they do not in any way abuse it to the prejudice of other men.
- - - Bouvier's Law Dictionary
NATURAL LIBERTY - The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner in which they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere in the equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 123,
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth edition, p. 919.
" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987
= = = =
GOVERNMENT (Republican Form of Government)- One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people ... directly...
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 695
Pursuant to the Declaration of Independence, and the republican form of government, Americans are endowed by their Creator with natural rights, natural and personal liberty, and absolute ownership of private property (to name but a few), upon which they can exercise sovereign prerogatives.
BUT
If they consent to be governed, they descend to subjects, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, that waive endowed rights to life, liberty and absolute ownership.
How do we know this to be true?
George Washington wouldn't lie - - -
. . .
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.
[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]
Make no mistake!
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to life.
• But citizens have no inalienable (endowed) right to life.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to natural and personal liberty.
• But citizens have only civil and political liberty.
• The Declaration says : YOU have an endowed right to absolutely own private property (upon which you can pursue happiness without permission of a superior).
• But citizens have no private property, absolutely owned... a portion can be claimed by the government.
If you've consented to be a citizen, you have NO ENDOWED RIGHTS.
Zip. Nada. Bumpkiss. Empty Set. Nought.
Any presumption to the contrary is an error not supported by law nor court ruling.
The government can order you to train, fight, and die, on command.
The government can take a portion of your property -or wages - or whatever - as it sees fit.
All authorized by your consent to be a CITIZEN (state or U.S.).
(The USCON complies with this, too. People have rights and powers. Citizens have privileges and immunities. And they’re mutually exclusive.)
Frankly, if one aspires to the two greatest commandments, "Love God, and Love your neighbor as yourself," one would find little fault in the republican form.
However, if one consents to be governed, in the democratic form, all bets are off.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Even more, the atheist view, tends to be obsessed with "justice". Because if this life is all there is, then if there is no justice in this life, then there is no justice.
Why does there need to be any justification for seeking justice in this life other than having justice in this life? i.e. Why shouldn't mortals seek justice in the mortal world, afterlife or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
An atheist tends to become obsessed with economic and social opportunity for the disadvantaged. Justice thus transforms into economic justice, which transforms into materialism.
And religious people oppose "social and economic opportunity for the disadvantaged"?
Picture this, the first man who walked into his neighbor's cave and took his neighbor's stash of food gets his butt kicked for doing so. He decides in the future that stealing isn't a good idea. Is that morality? If so, how is it "completely made up" even though 'god' played no part?
BTW, I looked up the definition of morality and it stated: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. No mention of 'god'.
Let's just throw the question of "Does God actually exist?" out the window. Religions are part of the moral codification that humanity has developed over thousands and thousands of years. So why do we have to reinvent the wheel? Why do we have to recreate events that ancient people already experienced and created religious taboos in order to avoid recurrence?
Now to your example, what if the first man gets away with it? What if he does it again and gets away with it again? Pretty soon, everybody is raiding everyone and everyone is killing everyone and it's chaos. Anthropological studies suggest that early tribal humanity saw about a 60% mortality rate via being killed by other humans (compared to about 1% today). It is in view of this total chaos that societies form and create solutions by creating laws and codifying morality into religion. Killing your neighbor and taking their stuff becomes taboo. Now there are rules against it. Not only that, but the gods or God will punish you for it -- just for added incentive. All behaviors that are destructive to society are outlawed and divine retribution is promised to the disobedient. It worked and has continued to work. Religion continues to be the biggest driving force for improving human society in the world.
PS: I'm still highly amused that the OP has posted a grand total of ONCE on the forums. Why are we feeding the troll?
There is nothing wrong with trying to make life better. But, a materialistic worldview is dangerous.
The problem with believing that this life is all there is, isn't in how it affects the decisions you make for yourself. It is in how it affects your views of society. More specifically, the concept of "progress".
What you are saying is that because atheists don't believe in God, that they don't believe in the future or don't care about the future. Which is completely wrong. Atheists have children, atheists care about society and progress. Atheism isn't materialism. You've conflated the two, wrongly.
Atheism isn't a rejection of values. It's a rejection of the belief in God. Atheists have many of the same values that Christians have. Atheists value honesty and integrity and empathy and generosity. They want to make this life count, to live it as well as possible, and part of making this life count is leaving a better tomorrow for their children and for society as a whole.
If there is no god, morality still exists. At best, morality is people recognizing that we are all connected, that we all have an interest in not just surviving, but in thriving and sharing and creating and building.
I don't have an interest in any of those things. Why should I?
I think the obsession with material things, is itself immoral. Is it basically the worshiping of Mammon.
As I said, either morality is that which god defines as good and bad, or it is merely that which is deemed useful by society, based on various factors and circumstances.
Basically, is polygamy moral or immoral? You could make plenty of arguments in favor of it, and many against.
Some people think keeping animals as pets is immoral(calling it slavery). Others think killing and eating animals is immoral.
Without some unquestionable moral foundation, morality becomes arbitrary.
What you are saying is that because atheists don't believe in God, that they don't believe in the future or don't care about the future. Which is completely wrong. Atheists have children, atheists care about society and progress. Atheism isn't materialism. You've conflated the two, wrongly.
And yet all of that is true of some atheists.
Quote:
Atheism isn't a rejection of values. It's a rejection of the belief in God. Atheists have many of the same values that Christians have. Atheists value honesty and integrity and empathy and generosity. They want to make this life count, to live it as well as possible, and part of making this life count is leaving a better tomorrow for their children and for society as a whole.
Many friends who lost their faith and became atheists became some of the most morally degenerate people you can imagine. Is this true of all atheists? No. But it is true of many of them. Some folks become atheists because they want to do bad things without having any sort of religious guilt complex for it. Some atheists value honesty. Some atheists are liars, thieves, con artists, etc. Some are generous and some are not. Some have a longview bigger picture set of ideals and try to improve the world for future generations. Some atheists don't give a crap and live for the moment.
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.
