Jaw Dropping Stupidity

_{Barry Arrington

August 22, 2016

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Sometimes a materialist will post a comment, and I will read it and then just sit there with my mouth literally agape, wondering at the sheer stupidity on display. I got that treat today when Rationalitys bane posted this gem:

we are much better off not pretending that morality is objective and live our lives knowing that we all bear responsibility for everything that we do in our lives.

Jack Kreb quoted RB’s little aphorism and added: “Excellent statement.”

So let me get this straight fellas. Morality is entirely subjective. If this means anything, it means that we are not accountable to any standard of objective moral truth, because no such standard exists. According to my dictionary “responsibility” means “the state or fact of being responsible, answerable, or accountable.” But wait a minute. You just said we are not accountable to a standard of moral truth, because no such standard exists.

RB’s statement boils down to this. We are better off not pretending we are accountable and live our lives knowing we are accountable.”

*palm forehead*

Comments

Pnidi said:
StelhenB, I don’t believe abortion is the slaughter of babies.
Of course it is. What else could it be? It is the killing of unborn human babies. If you can't even accept that scientific fact and say it flat out, you're hiding from something factual because you can't directly face what it is you are supporting.William J Murray_{August 26, 2016
August
08
Aug
26
26
2016
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT}

Pindi asks:
Wjm, you agree ice cream preferences are subjective right? So why continue to buy the type you like? Why not just buy a random flavor each time?
I actually never buy my favorite kind of ice cream because I rarely eat ice cream and my wife's favorite is vanilla, so that is what I buy because I like to make her happy. The last ice cream I ate was something non-chocolate that my daughter-in-law used in making a dessert. If the country stopped making chocolate ice cream, I wouldn't move to a country that still offered it.
Just because the law and morals are subjective why should I choose a course that doesn’t accord with my view of what is right?
Because "what is right", under your worldview, is just a matter of personal preference. If you personally prefer blondes, would you choose not to represent brunettes? If you personally prefer tall people, would you choose to not represent short people? If you are willing to leave the country over personal preference differences, and apparently (seeing as you refuse to answer these questions) would not passionately argue that the law should allow sex with minors or should allow the murder of Jews if it served the best interest of your clients, then you are revealing an obvious, functional, factual, categorical difference between your "subjective" moral views and other subjective, personal preferences. Pindi: is it moral to force others to obey personal preferences? Is it moral to intervene in the personal preference affairs of others? If you lived in a society you could not leave and turning in Jews for termination was the law of the land, would you set your personal preference aside and turn in Jews? You see, it one faces these hypotheticals in the spirit not of defending their own views but in the spirit of critically examining them, such questions would be welcome and direct answers would be forthcoming.
You are getting yourself all mixed up about how the law works. That’s Ok, it’s a complex subject.
No, Pindi, you're mistaking a philosophical debate about the assumed basis of law and morals, and about the ramifications of a subjectivist basis for moral and legal views, for some kind of argument about how the law works. I understand the basic principles of legal representation (which includes vigorous representation) and its adversarial nature. The questions I ask are in pursuit of exploring your subjectivist perspective, not exploring the structure of the legal system.William J Murray_{August 26, 2016
August
08
Aug
26
26
2016
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

rvb8 @81 said:
WJM, would answer it is that we have lost our moral compass. ..... Unless of course you would like to follow the abortion laws of Saudi Arabia, or shouls I say WJM’s and Kairosfocus’s abortion free paradise?
Abortion & Euthanasia: Why I’m All For Both by William J. Murray. You should really try to remember, rvb8, that I'm not a Christian. That might prevent you from saying things that are demonstrably false.William J Murray_{August 26, 2016
August
08
Aug
26
26
2016
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

PS: National Pledge of my homeland, solemnly recited at school assembly day by day, week by week in my youth . . . a pledge that in key part answers to Wiberforce, in the voice of we who descend from those he fought to set free:
Jamaica's National Pledge Before God and all mankind, I pledge the love and loyalty of my heart, the wisdom and courage of my mind, the strength and vigour of my body, in the service of my fellow citizens; I promise to stand up for Justice, Brotherhood and Peace, to work diligently and creatively, to think generously and honestly, so that Jamaica may, under God, increase in beauty, fellowship and prosperity, and play her part in advancing the welfare of the whole human race.
Yes, Jamaica is a work in progress (and it is a land where 2/3rds of us are abroad in one form or another so the international character of the pledge is particularly relevant), but -- though small in the scheme of things -- it is a leading nation in a region that even now is rising up to heed the call to stand for our civilisation and its godly heritage in a world gone demonically mad.kairosfocus_{August 26, 2016
August
08
Aug
26
26
2016
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

Pindi (attn RVB8), With all due respect, it is clear that you are unfamiliar with the work of reformers as opposed to unbalanced radicals and terrorists. I will choose a key case. After his conversion, William Wilberforce pondered leaving Parliament. Instead, he sought counsel and came to the conclusion he should become a voice of conscience and leader of reforms. He spent his life in argument, in working with researchers, in sponsoring and supporting movements of reform and in enduring decades of vicious slander. In the end, he won, and my ancestors were free. This is written on his tombstone in Westminster Abbey, a grave that is next to that of Pitt, and is in that Abbey by order of Parliament:
TO THE MEMORY OF WILLIAM WILBERFORCE (BORN IN HULL AUGUST 24th 1759, DIED IN LONDON JULY 29th 1833;) FOR NEARLY HALF A CENTURY A MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, AND, FOR SIX PARLIAMENTS DURING THAT PERIOD, ONE OF THE TWO REPRESENTATIVES FOR YORKSHIRE. IN AN AGE AND COUNTRY FERTILE IN GREAT AND GOOD MEN, HE WAS AMONG THE FOREMOST OF THOSE WHO FIXED THE CHARACTER OF THEIR TIMES; BECAUSE TO HIGH AND VARIOUS TALENTS, TO WARM BENEVOLENCE, AND TO UNIVERSAL CANDOUR, HE ADDED THE ABIDING ELOQUENCE OF A CHRISTIAN LIFE. EMINENT AS HE WAS IN EVERY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LABOUR, AND A LEADER IN EVERY WORK OF CHARITY, WHETHER TO RELIEVE THE TEMPORAL OR THE SPIRITUAL WANTS OF HIS FELLOW-MEN, HIS NAME WILL EVER BE SPECIALLY IDENTIFIED WITH THOSE EXERTIONS WHICH, BY THE BLESSING OF GOD, REMOVED FROM ENGLAND THE GUILT OF THE AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE, AND PREPARED THE WAY FOR THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN EVERY COLONY OF THE EMPIRE: IN THE PROSECUTION OF THESE OBJECTS HE RELIED, NOT IN VAIN, ON GOD; BUT IN THE PROGRESS HE WAS CALLED TO ENDURE GREAT OBLOQUY AND GREAT OPPOSITION: HE OUTLIVED, HOWEVER, ALL ENMITY; AND IN THE EVENING OF HIS DAYS, WITHDREW FROM PUBLIC LIFE AND PUBLIC OBSERVATION TO THE BOSOM OF HIS FAMILY. YET HE DIED NOT UNNOTICED OR FORGOTTEN BY HIS COUNTRY: THE PEERS AND COMMONS OF ENGLAND, WITH THE LORD CHANCELLOR AND THE SPEAKER AT THEIR HEAD, IN SOLEMN PROCESSION FROM THEIR RESPECTIVE HOUSES, CARRIED HIM TO HIS FITTING PLACE AMONG THE MIGHTY DEAD AROUND, HERE TO REPOSE: TILL, THROUGH THE MERITS OF JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY REDEEMER AND SAVIOUR, (WHOM, IN HIS LIFE AND IN HIS WRITINGS HE HAD DESIRED TO GLORIFY,) HE SHALL RISE IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE JUST.
A lesson. And the lives of our crucified and risen Saviour, his apostles and the martyrs and confessors who followed down to today (as BA77 reminds us just above) are a further lesson. The- witness- of- the- truth- and- call- to- sound- reformation is the fundamental battle. The one at the crux of the battle for the soul of our civilisation, from which all the other issues stem. The central keep of Sauron that must by God's grace fall. That is why so many caught up in the deceptions, agendas and fashionable sins of a day spend so much effort in suppressing the truth and smearing those who stand up for the unwelcome, costly truth. In this case, it is quite clear from what you have passed by in studious silence, that you have no cogent, morally defensible answer to the ongoing abortion holocaust that in 40 years has mounted up to 800+ MILLION innocents destroyed under false colour of law tainted by incoherent and false worldviews and the agendas that flow from them into ruinous marches of folly for our civilisation. A civilisation so endarkened that it is literally destroying its future as we speak. And, no surprise, as blood guilt is even more corrupting than money-lust, perverted passions and deceitful indoctrination. For, it eats out conscience and inflicts such pain on the conscience that those thereby directly tainted or tainted as enablers must spend ever so much psychic energy on benumbing conscience to ease the pain. But conscience is the God-given moral compass and governor within, the flickering candle of the Lord that enlightens and enables us to grow in responsible, rational freedom and to persevere, however stumblingly, in the path of virtue. Virtue, now seems an almost alien word to our ears. So far have we fallen, so far have we come on a conscience benumbed, en-darkened stubborn march of folly leading to ruin. Let us hear the voice of the Apostle to the Nations, writing to a Rome where the demonically deranged Nero was pervert and sinner in chief:
Rom 2:4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are self-seeking[a] and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality . . . . 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. [ESV]
Yes, the South wind has been blowing, but on the horizon we now see the leaden clouds of a typhoon-force early nor'easter, bearing down on us. It is too late for ship, cargo and hoped for selfish gain, but perhaps God in grace will give us salvation of souls and shipwreck that will allow a fresh start rather than the utter foundering of our civilisation (which, frankly, would be our just dessert). And yes, there is only one cure for cancerous blood guilt: the grace of God occasioned by the willing sacrifice of the Lamb of God, our Substitute, Saviour, risen Lord and the pioneer of a Faith that looks for a City whose builder and maker is God. In the end, it is only the truly heavenly minded who will do us serious earthly good. Which, is precisely why such unwelcome truths and unwelcome witnesses and calls to reform are predictably met with such patently demonic fury and slander. (Or, have we forgotten how mad Nero, to shift suspicion from himself, falsely accused Christians of treasonous arson and put ever so many to death by judicial murder; for, he was chief magistrate of Rome? Have we forgotten the centuries of lying whispers about alleged cannibalism, incest and secret orgies that were used to justify the slaughter of ever so many peaceful witnesses to the truth of the gospel? That the past 100 years have actually seen the bloodiest persecutions of all, energised by false ideologies, false accusations and benumbed consciences that imagine that from such evils good can come? How else, then, can we not see the parallel in the slaughter of 800 millions and more in the womb?) No, we are not shut up to enabling evil in the form of the worst holocaust in history, or becoming evil ourselves in attempts to stop it. The very suggestion that that false choice is the case, is part of the endarkenment that is on us because of our hardness of heart, addiction to evils and benumbed consciences. Let us repent. Then, let us read with understanding and awakened conscience, the short epistle, of Paul to Philemon regarding manumission of Onesimus (a runaway who apparently had stolen a considerable sum) that has in it the source of the motto of the antislavery society: am I not a man, and a brother? And again (as enslaved women faced even worse horrors due to dark passions of wicked men) am I not a woman and a sister? To which, we say on the behalf of the child in the most dangerous, most bloody battlefield in the world today on which war is being waged against our future with weapons of mass deception under false colour of law and dark medicine [a profession supposedly of healing that is betraying its duty] -- the womb: am I not your son or your daughter? Let us pray for the grace to be deeply ashamed and penitent. For through such pain, we have hope of redemption. Let us repent. KFkairosfocus_{August 26, 2016
August
08
Aug
26
26
2016
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT}

So our activism against abortion within a legal framework is not realty activist enough? The only form of activism that counts is terrorism or extremism? Really? Jaw dropping stupid things materialists say.....Andre_{August 26, 2016
August
08
Aug
26
26
2016
12:58 AM
12
12
58
AM
PDT}

Pindi
StelhenB, I don’t believe abortion is the slaughter of babies.
Do you mean that dismembering them or scalding them to death is not really slaughtering them, or do you mean that that a fetus is not really a baby? What if I said an abortion is the murder of an innocent fetus who has just as much of a right to live as you? Would that language raise your consciousness? In keeping with that point, are you now prepared to tell us where rights come from? You have been very silent on that subject even though you indicated that you are brimming with ideas. Does everyone have a basic right to live? Or is it the case that only those whom you and the state approve of should rate that privilege?
And nor do you I assume or you would be doing more than sitting around writing about it on a blog.
Does this mean that you have now changed your mind and that you are confident that I have a free will? Or are you suggesting that I should assert the free will that I don't have and start a revolution to prove my pro-life credentials? Are my public protests and financial gifts meaningless gestures? You have assumed, wrongly, that I don't do more than write about abortion, which is very presumptuous on your part. Meanwhile, I have never met an atheist who has actually witnessed the after effects of an abortion or even gazed on a picture of a mutilated fetus. Have you? I seriously doubt it. If you had, you would not write such silly things as "I don't believe that an abortion is the slaughter of babies." The atheist barbarians who rule our culture will not allow us to show a picture of an abortion on television. They know that doing so would immediately bring abortion to an end. I gather that you support this kind of suppression.StephenB_{August 26, 2016
August
08
Aug
26
26
2016
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT}

Pindi's observation that the outrage at abortion felt on this site is largely cosmetic is demonstrably true. If it was the crime many of you claim then the only objectively moral response would be to stop it at any expense. The man who murdered Barnard Slepian, and those who bombed the Birmingham Al., abortion clinic, should be objective role models. Why is their objective morality example not followed by those here? Any surviving victim, or resistance worker alive today who was known for killing guards, and officials of the true holocaust are lauded today as heroes. WJM, would answer it is that we have lost our moral compass. That is absurd because we know for a fact that as long as humans have been having sex, they have been finding new, and often dangerous methods to abort the unwanted pregnancy. I believe abortion should be thought about deeply, but that that choice must be free, and up to the mother and her physician alone, and safely available. Unless of course you would like to follow the abortion laws of Saudi Arabia, or shouls I say WJM's and Kairosfocus's abortion free paradise?rvb8_{August 26, 2016
August
08
Aug
26
26
2016
12:40 AM
12
12
40
AM
PDT}

Yeah... abortion is apparently not the slaughter of babies.... http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/13653568345_9e75f21725_b.jpg http://www.abortioninstruments.com/images/V3/abortion-photos/zoom/D-&--E-027.jpg Jaw dropping stupid things materialists say......Andre_{August 26, 2016
August
08
Aug
26
26
2016
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT}

StelhenB, I don't believe abortion is the slaughter of babies. And nor do you I assume or you would be doing more than sitting around writing about it on a blog.Pindi_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

Wjm, you agree ice cream preferences are subjective right? So why continue to buy the type you like? Why not just buy a random flavor each time? Just because the law and morals are subjective why should I choose a course that doesn't accord with my view of what is right? You are getting yourself all mixed up about how the law works. That's Ok, it's a complex subject. Just heading out for dinner so don't have time to explain it to you now. Will try and get a chance over the weekend.Pindi_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
11:19 PM
11
11
19
PM
PDT}

Pindi said:
I’m not actually a criminal lawyer.but the scenario you present doesn’t have any basis in reality.
One of the purposes of presenting hypothetical situations is to explore the logical consequences of one's views. What do you mean "no basis in reality"? In some real places and times in the world Jews were/are legally considered less than human and it was/is legal to have sex with minors.
It would be impossible to interpret the law in my country to allow sex with minors or killing Jews.
Hold on a minute, Pindi. Earlier you said:
When I am arguing with another lawyer or a judge I am arguing (passionately) my opinion about what the law should be in the given situation. It’s entirely subjective.
Advocating for what a law should be is not the same as limiting oneself to merely interpreting current laws.
If those things were legal in my country, I would not be living here.
But that is non-responsive to the hypothetical, which is if your client's interest was best served by arguing that the law concerning minors should be that it is okay to have sex with minors, or that the law with respect to murder should not include Jews, would you passionately argue for those things, regardless of the effect such a legal precedent would have?
As I said, I’m not a criminal lawyer, but people often say things about defence lawyers like – “how could you defend that paedophile scum”. Well, the answer is, every good lawyer believes in and supports the rule of law. It is not our job to judge people accused of crimes, that is the job of the judge. Our job is to ensure the accused person has the best representation we can provide.
Here you have an opportunity, through facing and responding to criticisms of your stated position, to explore how rationally consistent it is, both internally and with your actual behavior. IOW, you have the opportunity for actual rational argument in defending your views. Will you engage? You claim that both law and morality are "entirely subjective"; if this is true, then why not passionately represent your client's interests as I have suggested? If such things are entirely subjective, why would you leave the country? Why not just adopt the new laws and change your views on such things and continue with your job in that country?William J Murray_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

Pindu to Kairosfocus:
KS, neither you, nor anyone else here, believes abortion is akin to the holocaust. If you did, you would (if you had any backbone) be engaged in overthrowing your government, or at the very least living in self-imposed exile in a country where abortion was not legal.
That's easy for you to say since your dead conscience is easily reconciled with the barbaric slaughter of innocent babies. Yet you dare to criticize those who respond to the their silent screams for not doing what you say you would do if you had a conscience. Truly bizarre. Well, at least you have temporarily abandoned your previous doubts about the existence of free will. Or were you thinking that people who don't have free will can start a revolution? This, ladies and gentlemen, is a good example of how atheism compromises one's ability to reason in the abstract. Without a grounding in objective truth, the individual is left to wallow in intellectual quicksand.StephenB_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
08:59 PM
8
08
59
PM
PDT}

kf: Kayla Mueller in Captivity: Courage, Selflessness as She Defended Christian Faith to ISIS Executioner 'Jihadi John' http://abcnews.go.com/International/kayla-mueller-captivity-courage-selflessness-defended-christian-faith/story?id=41626763bornagain77_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

JAD, credible eyewitness testimony, here of close acquaintances and possibly relatives. (Similar to David, many of the close people were relatives.) That is evidence of highest quality. There was also serious circumstantial evidence, the otherwise inexplicably notoriously empty tomb. Thomas was playing hyperskeptic, and Jesus gently but firmly corrected him. Tradition has it, he died a martyr among the Hindus, a founder of the church that bears his name. KFkairosfocus_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

KF @ #61,
JAD, if we are to take Thomas Didymus seriously, we are responsible to respond to credible witnesses and circumstantial evidence.
Ironically, I have seen some atheists on other sites try to use the doubting Thomas passage (John 20:24-29) to argue that faith is “belief without evidence.” https://santitafarella.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/doubting-thomas-was-right-apportion-belief-to-the-evidence-no-evidence-no-resurrection-belief/ However, that argument fails logic 101. While Thomas himself was not an initial eye witness of Jesus’ post resurrection appearance, ten of the other twelve apostles were. Eyewitness testimony is evidence. Think what would happen if we applied this kind of naive skeptic's logic in our modern society. It would be impossible to convict anyone of a crime. Jurors themselves don’t need to be eye witnesses of a crime to consider the eye witness testimony of those who were witnesses as evidence. Jesus was not saying that eye witness testimony of his resurrection should be disregarded. “29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”john_a_designer_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

PPS: The other anthem -- the school song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ_GnaIUmokkairosfocus_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Pindi, thank you for clarifying your position. Unfortunately, it is that the mass slaughter of 800+ million unquestionably innocent, unquestionably human beings who happen to not yet be born, under false colour of law does not qualify as comparable to the holocaust. In so arguing, you have shown precisely the sort of corrupting influence of blood-guilt and bad worldview start points that we have spoken of, and where they point for our civilisation. In short, inadvertently [but in the end for the good], you have underscored the force of the concerns above. The remaining question is whether enough of us can wake up in good time to turn back the march of ruinous folly before it is too late. I do not know if you are inclined to pray, but you should consider praying for a miracle of rescue for our civilisation. As for me, that I am here 40 years later is already answer to prayer by way of miracles. So, I believe there is hope and that it is time for a godly remnant to arise in the face of where we are headed. I pray that you will wake up and join us before it is too late. KF PS: I am not in the US. And, the US seems to be leading in falling apart, near as I can see. It is no secret on whose side I would fight were Jews or any other groups subject to mass murder or marginalisation, dehumanisation to rob them of protection of law and scapegoating, the very same that I am now fighting on [anti-fascism being literally my first political view, acquired directly from my mother]. Yes, for the sake of posterity subjected to open season, no limits as though our own future were vermin to be eradicated. And SB, WJM, BA, Mrs O'Leary and others from UD would be people I could trust to stand by my side in the face of fearsome odds. As, they have done for years. PPS: Ancestral blood calls out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiyLuv3GSs4 and again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIIhvOBQB_Mkairosfocus_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT}

Pindi "the scenario you present doesn’t have any basis in reality" That is why it was presented to you as a hypothetical rather than as an actual case. And you dodged the hypothetical. Which was entirely predictable.Barry Arrington_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

KS, neither you, nor anyone else here, believes abortion is akin to the holocaust. If you did, you would (if you had any backbone) be engaged in overthrowing your government, or at the very least living in self-imposed exile in a country where abortion was not legal. Let's say instead Jews were being rounded up in the millions in the US and killed. Would you not react a little stronger than you are about abortion?Pindi_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Hi WJM, No I wasn't using the reference to justify my ideological position. I was using it make my point that HeKS could maybe consider the possibility that despite his certainty as to the "truth", he could be wrong. I'm not actually a criminal lawyer.but the scenario you present doesn't have any basis in reality. It would be impossible to interpret the law in my country to allow sex with minors or killing Jews. If those things were legal in my country, I would not be living here. As I said, I'm not a criminal lawyer, but people often say things about defence lawyers like - "how could you defend that paedophile scum". Well, the answer is, every good lawyer believes in and supports the rule of law. It is not our job to judge people accused of crimes, that is the job of the judge. Our job is to ensure the accused person has the best representation we can provide.Pindi_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

Pindi
You have expressed one theory of the rule of law. There are many others. The common theory is that it was invented to keep the power of kings at bay. In the common law tradition (as it was taught to me) it is traced back to 1066 when the Norman conquest occurred in England.
Again, you do not seem to grasp the rule of law and its relationship to objective morality. The point of the natural law is that humans are to follow it, not to invent one of their own. The moral law informs human behavior; human behavior does not inform the moral law.
I haven’t said that I don’t believe in free will. It is an unanswered question for me.
If you don't believe in the natural moral law, as is clear, then you don't believe in objective morality or the principle of objective justice. If you don't believe in the principles of objective justice, which are the standards of right and wrong behavior, then you don't believe in free will, which is ordered to the standards of right and wrong. In large part, atheists do not know what they believe. They just think they do. In your case, for example, you think that you believe in the rule of law, but you really do not. You are not sure that humans have free will, yet your philosophy rules it out apriori. And, of course, you have not explained how you can live with a judge who enters a verdict of "guilty as charged." I trust that you consider yourself unqualified to prosecute guilty criminals and limit your practice to defending those whose free will is in question.
I do care greatly about where rights come from. I just don’t share your view on where they come from.
You mean you care so much about where rights come from that you didn't disclose your opinion about it before and you don't care to do so now? That doesn't read like a high level of concern to me.
But yes, our side is winning, and the world is a better place for it. I would not like to be a citizen back in the day when the Church controlled everything, including the legal system.
The West is dying. All the cultural indicators confirm the point. If you don't know that, then you have not been paying attention.StephenB_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT}

Pindi, start with the now global abortion holocaust under false colour of law. Take Guttmacher's 50 mn a year number, times 40 years, then times a half and slice off 20%. What number do you get? Given that horror, explain to us how today's version of law, rights, and the like answers to the charge that we have forgotten God as ground of the good and of justice (so also of rights and duties), and have become utterly drunk and callous on blood guilt. Then, explain away what the twisting of the state to sustain that slaughter has done to any number of key stabilising institutions. Toss in a dash of ongoing demographic collapse as to be explained. Then, come back to us on grounding the civil peace of justice on evolutionary materialistic scientism that struggles to avoid treating the conscious self as an illusion, much less responsible rational freedom. Tell us why we should not agree with Plato that such schemes end up in might and manipulation driving 'right,' 'truth,' 'law,' 'rights,' 'justice' etc. Further explain why we should not conclude: march of ruinous folly. KFkairosfocus_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Does that constitute a “deferment to vague authority” in your book, or does HeKS get a pass?
Reference to authority neither makes or rebuts an argument. HeKS wasn't using that reference to make or rebut anyone's argument, but rather in a discussion directed at me about the nature of online atheists vs academics. You, however, were using the reference as if it justifies your ideological position.
Exactly, you got it in one. It would be gross breach of my legal and ethical obligations as a lawyer to not make the best case for my client no matter what my personal beliefs. There you go, you learnt something today about the law.
So, if it was possible for you to get your client off in such a manner that sets a legal precedent precedent via passionate representation which would establish sex with minors or killing Jews as legal activities, that is what you would do. Correct? Regardless of how you actually felt about having sex with minors or killing Jews? Because, you know, you might lose your job if you did otherwise. Correct? Let me ask you something: which would be more important to you: your job, or not setting such a legal precedent?William J Murray_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Sorry, I don't have time to respond in depth right now. A couple of points. You have expressed one theory of the rule of law. There are many others. The common theory is that it was invented to keep the power of kings at bay. In the common law tradition (as it was taught to me) it is traced back to 1066 when the Norman conquest occurred in England. I haven't said that I don't believe in free will. It is an unanswered question for me. And yes, the implications in criminal justice are great. I do care greatly about where rights come from. I just don't share your view on where they come from. "Any atheist lawyer is, by definition, an enemy of justice and, by implication, an enemy of the people. Make no mistake: to say that there is no such thing as the natural moral law is to be an enemy of justice. But be of good cheer. Your side is winning and the barbarians are in control of all the institutions that matter. Alas, having lost our understanding of what really matters, we seem to have gone beyond the tipping point." This is hyperbole. But yes, our side is winning, and the world is a better place for it. I would not like to be a citizen back in the day when the Church controlled everything, including the legal system. Benefit of clergy? Now there is an abandonment of the rule of law.Pindi_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

WJM, god you can be tedious. And ignorant. Regarding my "deferment to vague authority", this is what I was responding to from HeKS: "Academic atheists widely recognize these truths, but the average internet atheist seems immune to these realities" Does that constitute a "deferment to vague authority" in your book, or does HeKS get a pass? "So, if the law is entirely subjective, one would assume that, representing different different clients in different cases, Pindi would argue for law X in one case if it benefitted his client, and passionately against law X if it benefited the other client". Exactly, you got it in one. It would be gross breach of my legal and ethical obligations as a lawyer to not make the best case for my client no matter what my personal beliefs. There you go, you learnt something today about the law.Pindi_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

Pindi, It is impossible to build a well-ordered society on your philosophy. Just to give you one example, let’s consider your own field and reflect on how atheism has corrupted the law and rendered you personally incapable of judging human behavior. The first order of business is to recognize that, as a secularist attorney, you have no way of discerning a just law from an unjust law. You claim to have given this subject much thought, but I find no evidence to support that claim. For example, you say that “the rule of law if one of the most effective mechanisms we have even invented at keeping chaos and collapse at bay.” Why, then, do you promote lawlessness by undermining the rule of law and its foundations. Obviously, you are unaware that the rule of law, insofar as a precious sliver of it remains, is based solely on the “Laws of Nature,” and Nature’s God,” as Jefferson put it. The natural law defines (or at least once defined) the principles that inform the civil law, which is your territory and your responsibility. The rule of law works only because the natural law provides an objective standard of truth that can provide moral direction for lawmakers and citizens. It is understood (at least it was originally understood before people like you exerted their influence) that the people are capable of governing themselves because they know the difference between right and wrong and--get this--because their free will allows them to act in accordance with the natural moral law. We are a free people not because we want to be. People have always wanted to be free, usually to no avail. We are free because we can make a case for freedom: We deserve to be free because our faculty of free will qualifies us to govern ourselves and pursue our own self interests--if we can do so in the context of that same moral law. Thus, we don't need the top-down direction of tyrants or kings That is why your entire perspective is both irrational and immoral. On the one hand, you don’t believe in free will; on the other hand, the legal system of which you are a part shouts free will with every utterance. Otherwise, such notions as “guilty as charged” or “not guilty by reason of insanity” would be absurd. On the one hand, you defend rights, but on the other hand, you obviously don’t know and care less about where rights come from or why we even have them. We have rights only because we are entitled to them by virtue of our “inherent dignity” as morally-capable human persons who are made in the image and likeness of God. We have just laws based on the natural law (not arbitrary laws designed by secularists) to protect our God-given rights and because we cannot exercise them in a lawless society. Any atheist lawyer is, by definition, an enemy of justice and, by implication, an enemy of the people. Make no mistake: to say that there is no such thing as the natural moral law is to be an enemy of justice. But be of good cheer. Your side is winning and the barbarians are in control of all the institutions that matter. Alas, having lost our understanding of what really matters, we seem to have gone beyond the tipping point. A good society, after all, is one in which it is easy to be good and hard to be bad; a bad society is one in which it is easy to be bad and hard to be good. Thanks to people like you, we now live in a bad society; a majority our citizens can no longer differentiate between freedom and license. Accordingly, we are beginning to punish moral behavior and reward immoral behavior. We are in chaos because most of our citizens define justice as what is good for themselves and their social group and have no regard for the common good, which was always the standard that our Founding Fathers embraced. Because we are divided, tyranny is on the way and secularists like you have made it happen. Congratulations.StephenB_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

JAD, if we are to take Thomas Didymus seriously, we are responsible to respond to credible witnesses and circumstantial evidence. KFkairosfocus_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

I got kicked out of the edit function early. The last part of the 1st paragraph should read: "Why would it or should it? It is not their experience."john_a_designer_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

A couple years ago I almost lost my life because of cancer. It was then while I was walking “through the valley of the shadow of death” that I made a very deep and renewed connection with my faith. However, my personal experience is only evidence (and it is indeed evidence) for me. However, I doubt my experience is going to sway a skeptic one way or the other. Why would it or should it is not there experience. Nevertheless, I am being honest and sincere when I say “I am willing to change my mind if I am presented with valid arguments backed with real reasons and evidence.” However, at present no one has presented me with that kind of evidence. That alone is sufficient evidence to convince me that my world view is the correct one.john_a_designer_{August 25, 2016
August
08
Aug
25
25
2016
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply