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.
The imposition of laws should NEVER be based on religious belief UNLESS they have a clear secular purpose . . . like murder. There are NOT just two possibilities there are three.
1. Those who want to impose pro-God laws on others.
2. Those who want to impose anti-God laws on others.
3. Those who don't want to impose ANY God laws on others.
God's laws are personal and each individual in a FREE SOCIETY gets to decide whether or not to follow them . . . NOT society.
I find it very ironic that those who dont believe in absolute moral laws suddenly show they exist by their REACTION when they are treated unfairly ; there isnt a person on earth who doesnt EXPECT to be treated with absolute fairness, dignity, honesty, equity, and respect...yet they want to live as they like ,unencumbered by absolute values. Ill bet if their Spouse came to them and announced that he/she would like to embark on a lifestyle of adultery ... that their 'moral relativism' would thus wane ! . Lastly, I find it interesting how many view God-given absolute moral laws to live by, an 'imposition' ... when they were established for a maximized civil society , protection against immorality and corruption , for the wellbeing of all. These are things to be embraced and to be held sacred...and not complained against so moral decadence leading to anarchy, can flourish ---- yet it isnt in a Society that fosters great apathy toward what is righteous .
I find it very ironic that those who dont believe in absolute moral laws suddenly show they exist by their REACTION when they are treated unfairly ; there isnt a person on earth who doesnt EXPECT to be treated with absolute fairness, dignity, honesty, equity, and respect...yet they want to live as they like ,unencumbered by absolute values. Ill bet if their Spouse came to them and announced that he/she would like to embark on a lifestyle of adultery ... that their 'moral relativism' would thus wane ! . Lastly, I find it interesting how many view God-given absolute moral laws to live by, an 'imposition' ... when they were established for a maximized civil society , protection against immorality and corruption , for the wellbeing of all. These are things to be embraced and to be held sacred...and not complained against so moral decadence leading to anarchy, can flourish ---- yet it isnt in a Society that fosters great apathy toward what is righteous .
Please supply some evidence for the "absolute morality" that you think exists.
Please supply some evidence for the "absolute morality" that you think exists.
Absolute morality, or The Moral Law which is inscribed on all of us , can be recognized in a few different ways :
1. 'There are no absolute values' is practically self defeating and practically undeniable ; For, the person who denies all values, values his right to deny them. Further, he wants everyone to value him as a person, even while he denies that there are values for all persons.
2. Our REactions help us discover the Moral Law (right from wrong) ; When the Moral Relativist finds himself treated unfairly, his reaction to the violation reveals the Moral Law written on their heart and mind. Our reactions also indicate that relativism is ultimately unlivable . People can claim they are Moral Relativists, but they surely wouldnt want their Spouse living like a sexual relativist.
3. Without the Moral Law , there would be no human rights.
4. Without the Moral Law, we couldnt know justice or injustice.
5. Without the Moral Law, there would be no way to measure moral differences.
6. Without the moral law, you couldnt know what was right from wrong.
7. Without the moral law, there are no moral grounds for political or social dissent.
8. If there were no moral law, then we wouldnt make excuses for violating them . People make excuses for immoral behaviour when caught . We never make excuses for acting like Mother Theresa, only when when we act against the Moral Law. We woulnt do so if it didnt exist.
Absolute morality, or The Moral Law which is inscribed on all of us , can be recognized in a few different ways :
1. 'There are no absolute values' is practically self defeating and practically undeniable ; For, the person who denies all values, values his right to deny them. Further, he wants everyone to value him as a person, even while he denies that there are values for all persons.
2. Our REactions help us discover the Moral Law (right from wrong) ; When the Moral Relativist finds himself treated unfairly, his reaction to the violation reveals the Moral Law written on their heart and mind. Our reactions also indicate that relativism is ultimately unlivable . People can claim they are Moral Relativists, but they surely wouldnt want their Spouse living like a sexual relativist.
3. Without the Moral Law , there would be no human rights.
4. Without the Moral Law, we couldnt know justice or injustice.
5. Without the Moral Law, there would be no way to measure moral differences.
6. Without the moral law, you couldnt know what was right from wrong.
7. Without the moral law, there are no moral grounds for political or social dissent.
8. If there were no moral law, then we wouldnt make excuses for violating them . People make excuses for immoral behaviour when caught . We never make excuses for acting like Mother Theresa, only when when we act against the Moral Law. We woulnt do so if it didnt exist.
The Christian religion has no morality. What it has is obedience to authority...If God told you to murder your neighbor for working on the sabbath, would you do it?
Absolute morality, or The Moral Law which is inscribed on all of us , can be recognized in a few different ways :
1. 'There are no absolute values' is practically self defeating and practically undeniable ; For, the person who denies all values, values his right to deny them. Further, he wants everyone to value him as a person, even while he denies that there are values for all persons.
2. Our REactions help us discover the Moral Law (right from wrong) ; When the Moral Relativist finds himself treated unfairly, his reaction to the violation reveals the Moral Law written on their heart and mind. Our reactions also indicate that relativism is ultimately unlivable . People can claim they are Moral Relativists, but they surely wouldnt want their Spouse living like a sexual relativist.
3. Without the Moral Law , there would be no human rights.
4. Without the Moral Law, we couldnt know justice or injustice.
5. Without the Moral Law, there would be no way to measure moral differences.
6. Without the moral law, you couldnt know what was right from wrong.
7. Without the moral law, there are no moral grounds for political or social dissent.
8. If there were no moral law, then we wouldnt make excuses for violating them . People make excuses for immoral behaviour when caught . We never make excuses for acting like Mother Theresa, only when when we act against the Moral Law. We woulnt do so if it didnt exist.
I think you trapped yourself here.
May the sins of the father be visited on the son?
Is slavery immoral?
How about genocide?
Multiple wives?
Either you believe that the answer to those questions depend upon who was committing the actions and when they occurred, (which makes you a relativist) or you must admit that the God of Abraham ordered immorality and was immoral himself.
...Either you believe that the answer to those questions depend upon who was committing the actions and when they occurred, (which makes you a relativist) or you must admit that the God of Abraham ordered immorality and was immoral himself.
Somehow I bet he doesn't do either, though, Boxcar...
Absolute morality, or The Moral Law which is inscribed on all of us , can be recognized in a few different ways :
1. 'There are no absolute values' is practically self defeating and practically undeniable ; For, the person who denies all values, values his right to deny them. Further, he wants everyone to value him as a person, even while he denies that there are values for all persons.
2. Our REactions help us discover the Moral Law (right from wrong) ; When the Moral Relativist finds himself treated unfairly, his reaction to the violation reveals the Moral Law written on their heart and mind. Our reactions also indicate that relativism is ultimately unlivable . People can claim they are Moral Relativists, but they surely wouldnt want their Spouse living like a sexual relativist.
3. Without the Moral Law , there would be no human rights.
4. Without the Moral Law, we couldnt know justice or injustice.
5. Without the Moral Law, there would be no way to measure moral differences.
6. Without the moral law, you couldnt know what was right from wrong.
7. Without the moral law, there are no moral grounds for political or social dissent.
8. If there were no moral law, then we wouldnt make excuses for violating them . People make excuses for immoral behaviour when caught . We never make excuses for acting like Mother Theresa, only when when we act against the Moral Law. We woulnt do so if it didnt exist.
Maybe you need some moral law because you can't think for yourself or control your own ethical behaviour, but the rest of us don't need some book or god telling us what we can and can't do.
And by the way, there is no such thing as 'moral law'. It is entirely a man-made invention dependent on the social constructs of the society you live in.
Try some Philosophy 101, it might make your posts less rambling religious right-sounding and inject some actual real thought into your opinions.
LOL Reluctance?!?!?! I've typed out my opinion on this, as clearly as I know how, at least twice in this thread.
Yes, RELUCTANCE. Does that strike a nerve?
I originally posted the hypothetical and you answered in the affirmative - that BOTH groups would be attempting to impose their world views. Then, later, wanted to change your answer. I interpreted your response as a failure to DIRECTLY respond to the hypothetical question. In an effort to get clarification, I re-posted the hypothetical in a separate post and asked, rather politely I might add, that you respond DIRECTLY to the question. You ignored me. Please pardon me, but it certainly comes across as RELUCTANCE in my book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Yes, all law is imposition of a moral code. Now, for the third time, secular laws don't impose a non-god world view unless they impede the practice of your chosen religion or the observance of that religion's moral code. The same CANNOT be said for non-secular laws. By definition, a non-secular law would impose a requirement to adhere to some specifically religious morals or dogma. Again, we're not talking about murder here, or other illegal acts that have obvious secular benefits.
I truly hope that is clear this time around.
Nonsense. After you've agreed that all law is imposition, you infer that an atheist group that seeks to implement laws (imposition) to favor/expand/promote abortion would NOT be imposing the atheist view. What you appear to be saying is that "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion" is to be interpreted, 'Congress shall only make laws that establish atheism.'
I think there was a reason as to why you originally responded affirmatively to the hypothetical. You would have obviously given the appearance of personal bias by answering otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I believe it would be wrong for any legislator to support non-secular laws, yes.
...like I said, 'Congress shall only make laws that establish atheism.' What could be more clear and, if one happens to comport to the atheist world view, it all becomes very convenient...does it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
This scenario assumes that one party is more secular than the other, doesn't it? I don't know that to be true. I'll still answer the question, as posed, however. I would hope it would have no more effect on the secularity of the SCOTUS than any other panel of Justices throughout our history.
You would hope? Seriously? After you've already affirmed the obvious attempts in the past of both "dems" and "repubs" to stack the deck? You would HOPE that they maintain secularity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Woah, woah, woah! It was an attempt to be clear about what *I'm* communicating, since there has been some miscommunication in this thread already (see the opening of this post). Nothing more. I apologize for any perceived insult, it was not intended.
Understood. I'll take your word for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I thought we agreed that world view also included opinions about the existence of god(s), the creation of the universe, etc? As such, the agnostic world view would differ significantly from the atheist world view on those topics, would it not?
My assertions are directed to the APPLICATION of a world view. Granted, anyone can make the claim to be anything but, if in the final analysis, every choice they make in APPLYING their world view comports with the atheist world view, what should we logically conclude?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Again, I apologize for any perceived insult. It was merely an attempt to be clear.
Understood. I truly appreciate your apparent concern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I believe I elaborated on the world view difference between atheist and agnostic above.
Again, my point isn't directed at what these views are, but HOW they are APPLIED to daily life decision making. You've inferred that God is not and would not be a consideration in any of these decisions. Claiming to be agnostic while making decisions that comport to atheism would logically place you in the same category as atheism with respect to the actual APPLICATION of your world view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Agreed, but I thought we came to a consensus earlier in this thread that morality was only a component of "world view"?
I don't recall off-hand what my assertion was but I would be inclined to say that morality is definitely a MAJOR component in ANY world view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I don't understand all this apparent anger, honestly.
No, we cannot fire them in the indirect sense, either. The most we can do is vote in new representation and hope that they appoint different Justices - which is FAR from a sure thing.
I'm really not angry nor have I been angered by your assertions. As stated before, I truly do appreciate the back-and-forth.
Yes, I would agree that it is extremely unlikely that SCOTUS justices would actually be fired. However, it is certainly possible provided the uproar and clamor among the electorate were sufficiently aroused. I agree, it is unlikely, but there is precedent for some very unlikely things happening in our history. I would also mention here that SCOTUS justices are subject to impeachment and that the justification for impeachment is not limited to improper conduct or malfeasance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Obviously popular vote can modify/amend the Constitution. However, I was speaking in reference to the evaluation of a law in reference to the current constitution and whatever amendments that may include at a given time. Popular vote has no impact on that.
...not DIRECTLY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
No, we can change what the measuring stick looks like, but we never do the actual measuring. In the end it may very well still come down to interpretation and we have no real influence over how things are interpreted.
Sorry. I suppose we must definitely agree to disagree.
Tiget, you're something. A law is an imposition on those it affects, BUT it does not automatically impose theism or atheism. If you still disagree, then tell me which of the two does a law against speeding impose?
My guess is you will once again ignore this simple question, because deep down you know that speeding imposes neither theism nor atheism, but that would break down your argument.
However, if you did aim to answer it, I might expect you to first ask whether it was a theistic group or an atheistic group that supported the speeding law, as if that made any difference.
Nope, not at all. I am simply tired of repeating myself. Nothing more than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I originally posted the hypothetical and you answered in the affirmative - that BOTH groups would be attempting to impose their world views. Then, later, wanted to change your answer. I interpreted your response as a failure to DIRECTLY respond to the hypothetical question. In an effort to get clarification, I re-posted the hypothetical in a separate post and asked, rather politely I might add, that you respond DIRECTLY to the question. You ignored me. Please pardon me, but it certainly comes across as RELUCTANCE in my book.
After giving it further thought, I modified my position. Which I did in DIRECT response to your question. I never ignored your question, I simply answered it in-line with another one of your posts. The fact that I didn't answer in the manner that you would prefer, does not make it ignoring you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Nonsense. After you've agreed that all law is imposition, you infer that an atheist group that seeks to implement laws (imposition) to favor/expand/promote abortion would NOT be imposing the atheist view. What you appear to be saying is that "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion" is to be interpreted, 'Congress shall only make laws that establish atheism.'
Can you please explain to me how a law allowing for legal abortion is imposing atheism on you or anyone else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I think there was a reason as to why you originally responded affirmatively to the hypothetical. You would have obviously given the appearance of personal bias by answering otherwise.
Think whatever you like. The reason I responded affirmatively in my original post is because I didn't take the time to fully consider your hypothetical scenario. Again, please explain to me what secular laws are imposing atheism on you and how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
...like I said, 'Congress shall only make laws that establish atheism.' What could be more clear and, if one happens to comport to the atheist world view, it all becomes very convenient...does it not?
Nope. You have not shown us how secular law-making imposes atheism, yet. Please do so, then we'll discuss how convenient it is or isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
You would hope? Seriously? After you've already affirmed the obvious attempts in the past of both "dems" and "repubs" to stack the deck? You would HOPE that they maintain secularity?
Again, being an R or a D is neither a guarantee, nor exclusion, of secular law making. If you believe it is, please explain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Understood. I'll take your word for it.
Thank you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
My assertions are directed to the APPLICATION of a world view. Granted, anyone can make the claim to be anything but, if in the final analysis, every choice they make in APPLYING their world view comports with the atheist world view, what should we logically conclude?
We should logically conclued whatever evaluation of the legislation imposed leads us to believe. Again, I'll say that my position that secular laws do not NECESSARILY equate to imposing an atheistic world view. If you disagree, please explain why and how it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Understood. I truly appreciate your apparent concern.
Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Again, my point isn't directed at what these views are, but HOW they are APPLIED to daily life decision making. You've inferred that God is not and would not be a consideration in any of these decisions. Claiming to be agnostic while making decisions that comport to atheism would logically place you in the same category as atheism with respect to the actual APPLICATION of your world view.
I don't recall off-hand what my assertion was but I would be inclined to say that morality is definitely a MAJOR component in ANY world view.
This is what you said earlier:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
...I'm more than happy to elaborate. I would define a "world view" as a formulated opinion, for or against, such things as the existence of God, existence of objective moral values, existence of the supernatural etc...basically, things which concern life's ultimate questions. My statement that everyone has a world view is to simply state that everyone has an opinion about these things - a personal window, if you will, through which each one of us views our surroundings.
So, with this in mind, would you agree that atheism and theism are competing world views?
I have no problem agreeing that morality is absolutely a major component of a world view. However, it is still only part of the whole, as you defined above. As such, I believe that there is significant enough difference to justify separating atheist and agnostic world views.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I'm really not angry nor have I been angered by your assertions. As stated before, I truly do appreciate the back-and-forth.
Good, as do I.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Yes, I would agree that it is extremely unlikely that SCOTUS justices would actually be fired. However, it is certainly possible provided the uproar and clamor among the electorate were sufficiently aroused. I agree, it is unlikely, but there is precedent for some very unlikely things happening in our history. I would also mention here that SCOTUS justices are subject to impeachment and that the justification for impeachment is not limited to improper conduct or malfeasance.
Agreed. Has a Justice ever been impeached? I have no idea...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
...not DIRECTLY.
Yes, not directly and not even with any level of certainty, IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Sorry. I suppose we must definitely agree to disagree.
I'm OK with that.
Last edited by hooligan; 09-14-2011 at 08:22 AM..
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.
