Replies

Can you actually make a reply in your own words, using your own reasoning, -- on the issue at hand, --- or will we be subjected to more of your cut/paste musings from various obscure 'philosophers'?

Well, I just might be able to do that, tpaine -- provided you can frame a proper question WRT "the issue at hand" that I might cogently reply to. How exactly would you define "the issue at hand"? And don't take the shortcut of saying that "we need to follow the Constitution." Speaking as an American, to me that point is not debatable. I just wonder -- where exactly do you think the Constitution "comes from?"

BTW, everything I write here whether you know it or not is based on my own observation and reasoning. If I "cut and paste" various "obscure philosophers" (and scientists, but apparently you haven't noticed that yet), it is only to cite authority for my own personally-informed views. Otherwise, I'd expect you'd think I was dealing merely in personal "opinion."

Betty, I'm not anti-religious, - I'm anti-zealot, as was Koestler.

You would think that individual freedom would be argued loudest by religious people in their own self interest. I'm afraid the zealots have the floor, -- and the podium.

Do you think I'm a zealot, tpaine?

Not at all betty, but you're giving a excellent impression of being unable to comment on the answers to questions you've asked me, thus leading you to ask yet more questions.
Can you actually make a reply in your own words, using your own reasoning, -- on the issue at hand, --- or will we be subjected to more of your cut/paste musings from various obscure 'philosophers'?

Well, I just might be able to do that, tpaine -- provided you can frame a proper question WRT "the issue at hand" that I might cogently reply to. How exactly would you define "the issue at hand"? And don't take the shortcut of saying that "we need to follow the Constitution." Speaking as an American, to me that point is not debatable.

How droll. You've been asking me questions, then when I reply you ignore the answer, and ask yet another question. An old, obvious and silly technique to give an illusion of debate. Here's the next one:

I just wonder -- where exactly do you think the Constitution "comes from?"

It came from the mind of the men that wrote it, betty. -- Duh.

BTW, everything I write here whether you know it or not is based on my own observation and reasoning. If I "cut and paste" various "obscure philosophers" (and scientists, but apparently you haven't noticed that yet), it is only to cite authority for my own personally-informed views. Otherwise, I'd expect you'd think I was dealing merely in personal "opinion."

Whatever.

Oh, BTW betty you asked:

"-- How exactly would you define "the issue at hand"? -- "

You framed the issue back at #410:

What could be the basis of community absent a shared moral law? And what could be the basis of moral law, if it were a purely human construct?
Which is to say, something that "evolves?"

You are correct to observe, I think, that moral systems built on atheist premises/worldviews have,

on the historical record, tended to tyranny and repression, not to human individual and social welfare.
It is only in postmodern times that people have tried to detach morality from its (historically) divine and transcendant Source. The result has produced personal disorder and alienation, and a breakdown in public discourse and civil order. Among other things.
Just some observations.
410 -BB-