Posted on 08/09/2002 10:52:13 PM PDT by jennyp
We don't see souless animals acting in this fashion. When a member of a dolphin pod is injured the other dolphins gather around to protect it and keep it from drowning. When a member of a wolf pack is injured, the others make sure it still gets food and is cared for. The skeletal remains of Smilodons (saber-toothed cats) indicate severely-injured individuals were well cared for by others. Why would humans do anything less, even without divine command?
The Communist Chinese, because of their "one child policy" have engendered the infanticide problem. From your rather shallow and facile reply methinks you are not actually thinking through your answers. Modern China doesn't hold itself to Confucianism any more, at least officially. That rather placid philosophy has been replaced by the more aggressive and inherently violent Maoism. Confucianism does form the basis of some of the more introspective philosophies of the region, but these are officially banned by the communists as they compete with the state for control of the individual's mind.
We could all prey on the weak, killing each other at will. But then, societal life would be impossible. I've made a decision to agree to live by and uphold certain societal norms, so we can work to the benefit of all mankind. Its very much a golden-rule type situation.
Oh, and you say that "most" people subscribe to this belief. What about those who don't?
They cannot coexist in a civil society. So they can either go to prison, or they can have fun in a chaotic free-for-all like Somalia.
Who are you to judge them? You're just an "ape" like they are.
No, I'm a man. And this country is a community of men and women, so we get to set the rules.
The Roman philosopher Seneca stated: "We drown our frail and sickly children". There will be about 40 million extra males in China in the next generation due to infant drownings, according to USA Today. Happens all throughout history. In fact in Rome it was legal to throw your children by the side of the road to die of exposure; these were called the "exposti" or 'exposed children'.
This practice was stopped in the Western world in 374 A.D. by the Christian emporor Valentinian I at the urging of Bishop Basil of Caesaria.
The fact that the Commandments are written doesn't prove that God is the author. There is no crime or moral offense that has not been committed by people claiming to be believers. There are few categories of crimes that have not been committed in the name of God. The Bible itself states that God ordered the Israelites to commit genocide.
Bad people do bad things. Sometimes they take the trouble to construct elaborate rationalizations and justifications. Thes justifications sometimes invoke science, but often invoke religion. In either case, it is just a bad person trying to wiggle off the hook.
Yeah, and you think it's wrong because you grew up in a Christian country. But if you were living in China you wouldn't. Or the Muslim world.
Or maybe you missed that story recently out of the middle east where two brothers strangled their 16-year old sister with a garden hose after she had an out-of-wedlock affair with an older man. The brothers got three months in prison, each.
If you want to pile up bodies, your stack is way, way taller than mine.
The correct format is AD 374. AD stands for Anno Domini (sp?) -- "In the Year of the Lord" -- and would naturally precede the date in the spoken word, and thus would do so in the written. One would think that you, at least, would have gotten that one right.
Infanticide has been practiced throughout history and even, during times of famine or strife, in so-called Christian countries.
Let's talk partial birth abortion. Let's say your "libertarian" society allows abortion on demand up until delivery. But my version of "liberty" states that life begins at conception and that without life there is no liberty.
So, a woman can abort her baby in the 9th month, because it's in her body. But I think that's murder.
What's your position? Who's right here, and who's wrong? Should abortion be banned, or not?
It is those very men who most deeply believe that God is watching that are currently committing the atrocities, and in God's very name, no less.
Your level of the basic decency of man is far below that of my own. I believe it is very difficult for individuals to commit attrocities. It is belief systems that are used to manipulated men to commit attrocities. The Romans used one to commit unspeakable acts against early Christians. In this century, you correctly note that Communists have murdered on an enormous scale.
The belief system that goes furthest in restricting atrocious behaviors is one with liberty as the prime engine. That is because any attempt to initiate force against another is a violation of liberty. Liberty neither requires nor precludes belief in God.
Re: infanticide. Yes, true. But it was illegal in Christendom. And Christian nations still ban it.
Ok, who determines these societal norms? An on the golden rule, if you're an atheist, what are the consequences of not observing it? There are none, really.
Let me cut to the chase here. It is impossible to found a society based on the idea of "liberty" or "fairness" or "justice" or whatever because everyone disagrees about what these ideas entail. Your version of "liberty" is going to be much more preferential to your position than my definition of "liberty". And everyone is going to have to have their own version of "liberty" or "fairness" or whatever.
So, guess what. In a society such as this someone is going to have to decide which version of "liberty" or "fairness" or "justice" is going to prevail. And because you can't appeal to God for authority, well then you have to appeal to force. If I refuse to go along with a version of "liberty" that I personally disagree with, then you're going to have to "initiate force" against me to comply, in direct contravention of your stated "gold standard" for libertarianism.
And who gets to decide what "liberty" or "justice" or whatever actually means? An intellectual elite? The people with the most guns? Who?
From my point of view, libertarianism--the atheistic variety--looks like this: an abstract idea that requires some sort of elite to make arbitrary decisions to stop that abstract idea from plunging into absurdity. These arbitrary decisions are backed up with force.
Gee, sounds like tyranny to me.
In this country, we all do, through our chosen representatives. In other countries, the ruling despot or oligarchy does.
An on the golden rule, if you're an atheist, what are the consequences of not observing it? There are none, really.
Not true. If murder is excused, and I murder somebody I don't like, then I'm likely to be murdered in turn by a vengeful family member. And even if it doesn't happen, my wanton violence would simply set an example to others that wanton violence is permissable, and I could be the target of some other random act of violence.
But even beyond this uber-rationalism, I (and I suspect this is true of most people) simply have no desire to kill wantonly. I believe that most people are born with a sense of civility and altruism that precludes violence. Man is not inherently a violent animal; he must be trained to kill. I do not believe I need to be coerced by threat of retaliation to be a good person.
I'd like to think I treat people decently, not because I fear eternal perdition, but simply because compassion is ingrained into my mind as a member of the human race.
Oy vey.
Let's talk about witch-burning. Let's say your "Christian" society allows the burning of witches for their beliefs and practices, based on the Biblical injunction that "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Ex 22:18). But my version of "liberty" states that individuals are free to believe as they will, and that without life there is no liberty.
So society can burn witches at will, because that what God commands. But I think that's simply state- and Church-sanctioned murder.
What's your position? Who's right and who's wrong? Should witch-burning be banned or not?
Is that enough information to proceed, or is it not cartoonish enough?
What if I chose not to subscribe? By what standard can you or anyone force me to submit.
If morality is nothing more than a set of rules man has reasoned to and forced upon by others, it has no bind on anyone who chooses to ignore.
If however morality is a set of rules set by a moral (un-corruptible, in-fallible) authority. A moral authority gained through authorship. Then what?
You cannot have it both ways, either
killing is wrong because the author of life says it is
or
killing is wrong because man has reasoned it to be so.
If you subscribe to the later I'd say that is fairly communist of you, or at least fascist. A body of men ruling morality from intellectualism or power.
I am a Free man and no reasoning of another will constrain me. I will not be kept from killing simply because society says it is wrong. Society has no hold on me, it has no Moral Authority over me.
Are you a free man or are you told what is right and wrong by the ruling society of men.
I guess that depends on your viewpoint. I would say there will be 40 million less women (due to 40 million infanticides).
This practice was stopped in the Western world in 374 A.D. by the Christian emporor Valentinian I at the urging of Bishop Basil of Caesaria.
No, it was outlawed. It has never been stopped anywhere or anytime, and for obvious reasons.
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.