Posted on 08/09/2002 10:52:13 PM PDT by jennyp
Well, as I see it, you have two choices. You can go to a place where your moral views are not subject to outside domination (Somalia or Afghanistan) or you can go to jail. In this country, the majority get to set the rules that everybody else live by. And if you don't have rules, you have chaos. I, personally, support a minimum of rules, but you've got to have rules nonetheless.
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.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Everybody wants their morality to be universal. Due to the realities of human existence, that will always be impossible. What we've done, nevertheless, is to create a framework of a few rules by which most of us can agree (i.e. murder is wrong). Many other moral points are far more contentious, but at least we've agreed to set up a framework where each side to an issue can present their view without fear of being in physical danger.
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?
Again, I must be slow today, because I don't understand what you're trying to argue. As an atheist, I don't believe in any sort of supreme moral authority.
killing is wrong because man has reasoned it to be so.
Exactly
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.
Huh? I don't mean to pass judgement, I'm only reflecting on what I see as the reality of the world.
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.
Fine. Kill. But we will impose our morality on you, whether you like it or not, and you'll go to prison. Because murder poses a threat to the continued existence of any sort of society, free or not.
Society has no hold on me, it has no Moral Authority over me.
Tell that to the Judge.
Are you a free man or are you told what is right and wrong by the ruling society of men.
I can have enough freedom living within the wide bounds of acceptable behavior determined by society at-large. The small degree of freedom I relinquish(to punch my neighbor in the nose, for example) is inconsequential in comparison to the security I gain.
Let's talk straw-man burning. This is a straw man and you know it. By the way, I'm against the death penalty.
I'm taking your argument first here. Here's your strawman: that I'm for a theocracy. I'm not. I'm perfectly fine with the Constitution as is.
All I need for this debate is this: there is a God. I cannot know his value on your life, or mine, and thus I cannot take your life or mine. My personal beliefs in the Christian faith are just that, personal. But the Judeo Christian respect for life came from just that--Judeo-Christianity.
It would be far more likely to see autos de fe in an atheistic society; no respect for life you see.
Right. The 'argumentum ad populum'. The majority of the people decide what liberty means. How does the majority enforce its view? Force.
Why don't you find me an example of this mythical libertarian society that permits abortion regardless of the stage of pregnancy? And I'll find some Christian societies that condoned witch-burning - that way, we can discuss the specifics of each case, rather than deal in straw-man hypotheticals....
This was all you needed to type, it is the base of your ideology. And yet you condemn Christians for doing the same thing.
This is the similarity between Atheist, Communist, Neo-Pagans and all non-Judeo-Christian ideologies. One body forcing another into whatever it deems fit. The only law that can be enforce is a prefect law from a moral authority. Man can never meet those requirements. The American system of Law and Morality was based on the perfect Law of the Creator, the one who has true Moral Authority. I cannot believe I am reading a Freeper who believes that a group of men can rule over another group. For the betterment of society of course. Though I am sure that when that same majority takes your right (your group of man given i.e. GOVERNMENT right) to bear arms you will protest. What a load of BS.
Your ideology says man in all his corruption can group together and force others to submit to whatever standard they deem fit. How very similar to Communism and Nazism
Let me ask you this--why did all of the major atrocities of the 20th Century occur in atheist/neopagan nations, and why did the Christian nations of the world champion life and freedom?
It's the same reason America has a Special Olympics and China doesn't. Christian respect for life. Children with Down's syndrome never make it out of the delivery room in China. That's atheism in a nutshell.
We also know that "preemie" children can survive and grow up normally. Are you trying to tell me that no child has ever been aborted in a D&X procedure that couldn't have been delivered?
And here I wondered why they just passed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act?
But you dodged the question nonetheless. How do you establish a libertarian society when people can't agree on what "liberty" entails? Ayn Rand tried to solve this problem by stating that "Between rational men there can be no disagreements". But this is utter nonsense. Of course rational men can have disputes. That's what we're doing right now. But what Rand doesn't say is that the above statement about rational men and disagreements is completely *non-negotiable* in her philosophy. Because if rational men can have disagreements, then Objectivism is nonsense.
By the way, Rand used to solve that particular problem by essentially stating that anyone who disagreed with her was "irrational". Convenient.
Correct. While I fear the tyranny of the majority, it is the least-bad way of effecting a civil society. I'd like to minimize the role majority-morality imposes itself on minorities, but like it or not, it has to happen to a certain degree.
Being Created gives Moral Authority to the Author of the Creation. He can set rules and give inalienable rights. We as men can then protect those rights and enforce those rules. We can reason ways to enforce morality if and only if that morality comes from the Moral Authority over all men. And when a body of men reason new rules that violate the Creator's standards we can fight, as they have no right to rule over us outside the Creators standard.
Now, if someone hurts someone else or acts in a way that is completely detrimental to the social order, they can be removed from society. A country is a culture--shared values and norms, and people who violate those norms must be removed from the culture. But IMHO, not killed. I know a lot of FReepers may disagree with me on the death penalty, but I'm a consistent pro-lifer.
There was no question to "dodge" - merely repeated attempts to associate atheism with fascism, communism, libertarianism, abortion, objectivism, or whatever convenient boogeyman presents itself.
Why did all the major atrocities of the 19'th century occur under the auspices of Christianity? Your 4.5 million dead is ludicrously low - try 2-5 million dead in the Belgian Congo alone...
Neat country. They'll need a flag with a hammer, a syckle, and a pink flamingo on it.
"Sir, the majority has decided that you must die for the betterment of society. Take comfort knowing that it is the moral thing to do."
"Why chose me?"
"Well, not you individually, all Jews."
I will not, however, count the Black Plague or the many diseases that killed people in Central and South America and so on.
Au contraire, mon frere. If you don't observe society's standards you will, at best, be ostracized (at worst, society will kill you to get you out of its hair). Humans are social critters out of necessity; we don't survive well outside the group.
I want to make a personal note here as well. I do not disrespect atheists, even the ones who insulted me earlier. I think it is taken as a given among atheists that the Christian faith is intellectually indefensible. I'm taking the time on this thread to hopefully prove that to be not the case. All of this is in the interest of healthy debate between various factions of conservatives and libertarians.
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.