Posted on 08/29/2006 6:51:14 AM PDT by headsonpikes
Because it violates rational self interest.
Crying to the mods is what your wimpy Grand Master does. I haven't, and I don't.
HairOfTheDog: I think Galileo would disagree... he was prosecuted and lived under house arrest for suggesting the sun did not revolve around the earth.
Galileo was a Christian and remained one throughout. His interest in the heavens was partially informed by his view of a God created world. His Prosecution and "imprisonment" were more a result of his intemperate nature when confronted by those who disagreed with him than any religious sentiment about the earth going around the sun.
Nope: I'm in but my thirty-seventh year.
Church-going Catholics overwhelmingly went for Bush.
wow... 13% = overwhelming in your book? ok.
Now, Tribune7, put your thinking cap on: In what way does 37% of the Catholic vote going to Kerry invalidate my statement: "Many devout Catholics vote Donk"?
37% of the Catholic vote going to a hideous spineless horsefaced Janus of a Donk seems rather to puncture the air of accuracy of your *assertion* that the only sizeable group of church-goers to vote Donk are Blacks.
But... you don't see this, despite (considering the accuracy of your assertions) "More than you I suspect."
You must be using that "New Math" I've heard tell of.
...I would not call "devout" nor are there than many of them....
1. what you'd call "devout" is irrelevant. they are devoted to what their creed.
2. As your stipulation concerned "church-goers" and not level of and debatable standards of devotion, your objection is doubly irrelevant.
3. Yes, there are a whopping boatload of them, and most of the congregations in the Northeast are heavily leftist.
These facts and logical consequences are obvious.
But... you don't see this, despite (considering the accuracy of your assertions) "More than you I suspect."
You must be using that "fuzzy reasoning" we 'old farts' hear rumour of every so often.
More than you I suspect.
mmm-hmmmm... right. sure you did. yeah... that's the ticket.
I don't know how I erred so badly as to post 37% and a 13% difference, especially as the accurate numbers hammer your assertion worse than does my error.
need... more... beer...
As opposed to some of the holier-than-thou a-holes around here. Of course, I'm not naming any names.
No, it doesn't mean that. It means being apart from company or observation. Wiki defines it as "the ability of an individual or group to keep their lives and personal affairs out of public view, or to control the flow of information about themselves" which seems a pretty good definition and shows why government how government can go too far in protecting it.
How about if the government suspects one is harming another? Can it snoop? How about if you run a red light at 2 a.m.? Can it interfer?
Trial by jury? Freedom of religion? Abolition of slavery? The right to keep and bear arms? Free markets?
The question was specific to particular persons and therefore is irrelevant in a discussion of general morality. It is not true that in "every culture" it is wrong for any person to assault any other person. There are societies in which it is OK and even commendable for some people to assault other people.
Now please provide me a rational reason why it isn't wrong for me to hurt you for no reason if we proceed from the assumption that it is wrong for you to hurt me for no reason.
I claim that you cannot reason from the assumption "that it is wrong for you to hurt me for no reason" to anything. You need at least one other proposition to get to a conclusion. You are making an unstated assumption that you and I are in some way equivalent (a Christian notion).
That's not why we think slavery is wrong.
I'm sorry, the last part of your first paragraph seems to have gotten garbled in editing?
Your second paragraph raises important questions that are addressed by the amendment that you presented me with. The government can only infringe upon a person's rights when that person is committing a crime and due process of law finds that person guilty.
People who never go to church are secularists. (And I typed that real slow for you.)
It seems you have a set of people you've not categorized. That would be those people who did not tell a pollster they attend church every week and those that say they never attend church. Are they secularists?
js1138 But of course that is exactly why we have governments, laws and police. And why such institutions can fail so quickly when they lose the support of the majority.
Of course, but we were speaking of morality.
Judging from history, one can conclude that the person making such a statement is a theist, usually (Hitler being an exception) clergy.
Well, I've also been accused of trying to entrap for "self-promotion"--and I didn't even point out the irony of the Advertisement in post #37...
The assertion that it is atheistic does not make it incorrect. Atheists are no more biased against God than theists are biased for God.
"The point is that the Evolved societal right and wrongs differ in time and place.
Indeed. However there are a number of moral tenets that cross time and culture.
"Right and wrong as used by most in the US are derived from Christian principles. Atheists deny that but true none the less."
Where are those 'Christian principles' from? If evolution is the driving force behind moral beliefs then those 'Christian principles' are a product of evolution. In fact, if evolution is all there is, the belief in God is an evolutionary adaptation.
Remove God from the equation 'completely' and nothing would change. God, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, atheism,... would all be the product of evolution.
"The impetus is toward protecting the self and the tribe (i.e., the immediately related group) and the other be damned."
I don't see how that's at all inconsistent with what I've been saying, so unless you sharpen your argument it sounds like you're disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
"one can conclude that the person making such a statement is a theist,"
Or at least usurping the language and making brazenly illogical equations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.