Intelligent Design

Yes, Mobs Are Famous for Respecting the Rights of Minorities

Spread the love

Sometimes it is useful to highlight some of the more aggressively stupid things that materialists say:

Stephen B:

How do you decide if the government has over-stepped its authority?

Aurelio Smith:

In a democracy, you can assert it and see if anyone agrees.

52 Replies to “Yes, Mobs Are Famous for Respecting the Rights of Minorities

  1. 1
    News says:

    It was never that easy in Canada.

    Can someone give me the name of a country where it was that easy? I would like to enquire as to their system of government.

    We normally have to replace our elected reps, which means going head to head with the people who want the government to overstep.

    No one ever said freedom was cheap, only that it is possible.

  2. 2
    Barry Arrington says:

    Classical liberalism of the Burkean variety is built on a foundation of theistic (specifically Christian) presuppositions. It will be interesting (horrifying probably, but certainly interesting) to see what happens to the superstructure after our materialist friends have completed their project of destroying that foundation.

  3. 3
    JWTruthInLove says:

    Activist judge (who according to AS over-stepped his authority) overturned the will of the people:

    The Rev. Franklin Graham, CEO of Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, said Monday that “activist judges are overturning the will of the people,” when speaking about the 61 percent of North Carolina voters who supported an amendment banning same-sex marriage in their state.

    “It’s sad when a judge is able to overrule the will of the people. This is a democracy and the people spoke. We’re seeing that activist judges across the country are overturning the will of the people,” Graham, a native of the state, said in an interview with NBC Charlotte. “We saw that in California. We’re now seeing it here in North Carolina now. I don’t know what will take place.”

    http://www.christianpost.com/n.....gs-128056/

  4. 4
    News says:

    Yes, Barry, that’s true. Strange when I think of it.

    Just for example, when my own country was being confederated in 1867, our founders chose the national motto:

    And the Lord shall have dominion from sea even unto sea. – Psalm 72, v8
    http://biblehub.com/psalms/72-8.htm

    So Canada was called a Dominion and the motto on the Coat of Arms is “from sea even unto sea” (A mari usque ad mare).

    No one ever considered relying on either man or (heaven help us!) nature to make all this stuff work. (Nature is not a warm fuzzy in Canada.)

    When I hear how we are going to do without that traditional theistic backdrop, I hear one of two things: Your brain was shaped for fitness, not for truth, or Submit to Allah or else!

    With respect to the latter, we have so far withstood the “or else” part okay here, and lived to tell about it.
    (But we really don’t like that sort of thing and don’t glorify it.)

    I worry more about the former, Darwinian stuff: The slow poison of the belief that people aren’t really free anyway, so government should just constantly encroach on everything, whenever someone sees a possible role for it.

    I will soon be writing an article on free will issues. Wish me luck.

  5. 5
    Barry Arrington says:

    JW @ 3:

    The phenomenon you describe results from a clash of ontological visions as explained in a recent article in FT:

    there can be little doubt that we live in revolutionary times, even if this revolution is the full flower of seeds planted long ago. What availed as the common wisdom of mankind until the day before yesterday—for example, that man, woman, mother, and father name natural realities as well as social roles, that children issue naturally from their union, that the marital union of man and woman is the foundation of human society and provides the optimal home for the flourishing of children—all this is now regarded by many as obsolete and even hopelessly bigoted, as court after court, demonstrating that this revolution has profoundly transformed even the meaning of reason itself, has declared that this bygone wisdom now fails even to pass the minimum legal threshold of rational cogency. . . .

    Such are the logical consequences of the sexual revolution, but to grasp more fully the meaning of its triumph, we must see that the sexual revolution is not merely—or perhaps even primarily—sexual. It has profound implications for the relationship not just between man and woman but between nature and culture, the person and the body, children and parents. It has enormous ramifications for the nature of reason, for the meaning of education, and for the relations between the state, the family, civil society, and the Church. This is because the sexual revolution is one aspect of a deeper revolution in the question of who or what we understand the human person to be (fundamental anthropology), and indeed of what we understand reality to be (ontology).

  6. 6
    rvb8 says:

    Don’t worry Aurelio, as soon as I saw the title,(which has as many words in it as the article) I thought, ‘another indepth well researched piece from those paragons of academic rigour at UD’. And I was right! Who could have guessed?

    Another way to describe ‘the Mob’ Barry, is to give them their correct name in our modern era, they are those that represent, ‘the tyranny of the majority’. Used first in classical Greece and borrowed by John Adams in 1788, it describes mob mentality of course.

    In modern America to see this ‘mob tyranny’ most clearly you need go no further than the Cgristian faith. With its constant yammerings concerning persecution you would suspect they were truly persecuted. However a glance at any census soon explodes that myth. A casual viewing of FOX News sees this majority and their sham complaints of persecution clearly exposed.

    Tell me Denyse, if UD is constantly claiming that evolution is overwhelmingly decried by the MAJORITY of Americans, if census after census tells us Atheists make up less than 10% of the US pop, if outside of academia Jesus is known to be Lord, if time and again most Americans say they believe in a personal God, who exactly is the MOB?

  7. 7
    News says:

    rvb8: I don’t watch (maybe can’t even get) Fox News Don’t know and don’t care, don’t own a TV, am not an American [you didn’t know, of course; all your baddies are Yanks])

    But am a member of the Cghristian faith (not a Yank product, if you check the patent, pretty old).

    In my part of the world, people are not allowed to murder, mutilate, beat, or otherwise oppress women, but that is principally due to the values entrenched by Jewish and Cghristian faith. So it is okay for me to do what I do. I make no secret of being happy with that state of affairs. I would like to export it worldwide everywhere,and nail it down for all time.

    With respect to the academic mob, one must ask what academics believe, not what most people believe. What proportion of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalist atheists who do not believe in free will? 78%?

    They are most likely part of the MOB, since you asked.
    – O’Leary for News

  8. 8
    rvb8 says:

    Sorry ‘Cghristian’ was a keyboard slip.

    Actually Denyse I am a New Zealand citizen, writing this from China. You could say I am a citizen of the world; I like that idea. How did you conclude I was a Yank? I can see nothing in what I wrote that overtly pointed to that conclusion. I do however follow the ID argument closely; I don’t see it as a debate, as a debate would require a decent counter argument.

    I think 78% of biologists who are also atheist or agnostic, is a very low figure Denyse, I would put this particular demographic at higher than 90%; pure speculation on my part, with nothing to back it up other than anecdotal, and web posting, evidence.

    You conjoin those who are atheists with those who ‘do not believe in free will’. My only response to this is to ask this question, and honesty (as you are Christian) would be appreciated: I am an atheist, my partner of 7 years is an atheist, R. Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Myers are atheists. If you were in conversation with me and my partner, or the others mentioned, and you said “you do not believe in free will”, what do you suppose my/our response would be? I will give you a clue, I only choose to come here for reasons of truth, and veracity of science.

  9. 9
    News says:

    rvb8 at 11, I didn’t conclude anything about you except that when you started ranting about Fox News (?) I concluded you were a Yank. Sorry.

    No one rants about Fox News across vast stretches of North America. As we say where I live, check a map, check a map, check a map, map, map (sung to the tune of The Lone Ranger).

    If you follow the links, you will discover that the 78% figure is from a journal article. If you say it is higher on speculation, who is to dispute that?

    “I only choose to come here for reasons of truth, and veracity of science.”

    Sure. And that fellow wants to sell me a used car for my own good.

  10. 10
    rvb8 says:

    “I didn’t conclude anything except that when you started ranting about Fox News(?)I concluded you were a Yank”?

    That sentence makes no logical sense.

    You say I ‘rant’ about Fox News. I said, “A casual viewing of Fox News sees this majority and their sham complaints of persecution clearly exposed.” It does.

    It was Barrie’s misrepresentation of Aurilio that I was mainly concerned about, but you chose to focus (using your Christian free will) upon a side bar of my argument; Fox News.

    One more question; Why do you think I, as an atheist, possess no free will? I do. My partner constantly accuses me of using it too liberally. Perhaps I possess more free will than you as I am not bending over backward to ask WWJD? You see I already know what Jesus would do, and although I fall far shy of His sublimity my atheistic free will says try, try again. Good enough for you? Or are you determined to not only have me think as a decent human being, you must also use your free will, to twist my free will, to think as you do. I believe there is another name for this; Fascism.

  11. 11
    goodusername says:

    News,

    What proportion of evolutionary biologists are pure naturalist atheists who do not believe in free will? 78%?

    According to the source you used, the number of evolutionary biologists who don’t believe in free will is 14%.

  12. 12
    hrun0815 says:

    goodusername, being off by about five-fold is pretty good considering the quality of research ‘News’ usually puts into her posts. It’s still within the same order of magnitude, so really not that far off.

    Alternatively, ‘News’ is simply confused about what the 78% number actually refers to. Either way, it is a good representation of the quality of her posts.

  13. 13
    Robert Byers says:

    The foundation of Britain ,later America, later Canada etc was about who is the final boss on important matters in a nation.
    It was agreed, in different words, that GOd is the final boss.
    after this or if this doesn’t matter then our nations decided it was the people and here we are today.
    A new recent attack on this has taken place.
    They say the boss is human rights. not from God but aside of him.
    Then someone decides what those human rights are. So in reality men/women are now the final boss.
    This shown in the case of Judges overthrowing God and the peoples OPTION to decide this or that.
    The gay marriage is a moderrn classic case.
    to deny god ior the people the absolute right to decide their marriage laws is just plain rebellion and usurpation of authority and power.
    These judges do it on a pretext of a human right claim that trumps God and the people. These judges then take the peoples money to boot.
    its stupid, ignorant, evil. Its way unreasonable and so usurption is evil in a free nation.
    We are right back to the beginning.
    Who is the final boss!!
    God or the people or concepts of what is right that are determined by some people.
    Democracy has nothing to do with it.
    Its about natural(God) rights once again.
    The bad guys are once again up to no good.
    We can beat them. Watch your case.

  14. 14
    StephenB says:

    Aurelio Smith

    In a democracy, you can assert it and see if anyone agrees. In a democracy, you can protest and campaign for change. You can vote against a government you don’t like and persuade others to do likewise.

    Aurelio, one of the problems I have in interacting with materialists is their proclivity to answer questions that I do not ask and ignore the ones that I do ask.

    You will notice that I didn’t ask you how citizens should respond to a government that has overstepped its authority. Any such discussion would be premature and a waste of time for someone who doesn’t understand why governments are established in the first place.

    Pay close attention to the wording: “How do you decide if the government has overstepped its authority?” What signs would you look for? What standards would you think had been violated? Its a question about analysis, not action.

    In order to address those issues, you must first know the purpose of government (what it is supposed to be doing) and the limits of government (what it is not supposed to be doing). Only then can you know when government has overstepped its authority.

  15. 15
    Mark Frank says:

    When I hear how we are going to do without that traditional theistic backdrop, I hear one of two things: Your brain was shaped for fitness, not for truth, or Submit to Allah or else!

    It seems the only alternatives to Christianity are Islamic fundamentalism or a mob of evolutionary biologists run amok.

  16. 16
    StephenB says:

    rvb8

    I am an atheist, my partner of 7 years is an atheist, R. Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, P.Z. Myers are atheists. If you were in conversation with me and my partner, or the others mentioned, and you said “you do not believe in free will”, what do you suppose my/our response would be? I will give you a clue, I only choose to come here for reasons of truth, and veracity of science.

    While Richard Dawkins is conflicted on the matter, Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers firmly reject libertarian free will. Your position is unclear since it could be an expression of compatibilism, which is not the same thing as libertarian free will. So you have a long way to go before you can justify your insinuation that the five people you mentioned are all on the same page.

  17. 17
    hrun0815 says:

    Aurelio, one of the problems I have in interacting with materialists is their proclivity to answer questions that I do not ask and ignore the ones that I do ask.

    Imagine my difficulties with you when after repeated asking you don’t even make an attempt at answering question but simply continue to asked more.

  18. 18
    hrun0815 says:

    It was agreed, in different words, that GOd is the final boss.

    I have a difficult time squaring this with who actually is the final boss in these (and all other) countries.

    I guess you could argue that since God is supposedly immortal he can always be considered the final boss, but I’m pretty sure that countries generally do not rely on this fact.

  19. 19
    StephenB says:

    hrun0815

    Imagine my difficulties with you when after repeated asking you don’t even make an attempt at answering question but simply continue to asked more.

    What question did you have in mind?

  20. 20
    hrun0815 says:

    StephenB, I asked you questions multiple time. Your answers were demands that I first answer yours or simply continued questions.

    I don’t actually demand that you do back and answer them so I don’t feel compelled to search out the post numbers for you or CP here. It is just funny that you make a big point about somebody getting the thrust of your questions wrong when attempting an answer.

    So maybe there are more difficulties in your interaction with materialists than simply the fact that they, on occasions, answer questions that aren’t exactly what you asked.

    Finally, if you are convinced that to answer one of your questions one has to actually answer a few others first, it might be worth to point this out when asking (could be that others don’t agree) or maybe consider asking those questions first.

  21. 21
    StephenB says:

    hrun0815, Here is what I found after searching back

    When you use “the natural moral law” as a phrase, knowing you to be a conservative Catholic like Ed Feser, are you referring to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica?

    Not necessarily. C.S. Lewis’ understanding of the Tao would also do just fine. The same with the Founding Fathers and the Declaration of Independence. Forget about Hobbes, though.

    As I see it there are three separate issues. 1. What is a fair ethical framework for a society. 2. What are ways to best implement it. 3. What legal sanctions should there be against individuals who will not adhere to that ethical framework. You have some work to do in justifying your “natural law” as an objective package that will do for 1, rather than your subjective choice.

    We were not discussing implementations or legal sanctions. Meanwhile, you appear not to understand that the Natural Moral Law has both an objective and a subjective component.

    You seem to have assumed your conclusion.

    Why do you say that? Be specific. I would prefer not to guess.

  22. 22
    StephenB says:

    StephenB, I asked you questions multiple time. Your answers were demands that I first answer yours or simply continued questions.

    I don’t know why you continue to complain about that which you will not specify.

    I don’t actually demand that you do back and answer them so I don’t feel compelled to search out the post numbers for you or CP here.

    Now you are saying that it is too much trouble for you to go back let me know which question you had in mind? You left it all up to me, so I went to the trouble for you.

    Meanwhile, you complain about my perfectly reasonable exhortation for bloggers to read my questions before responding to them?–Are you for real?

  23. 23
    StephenB says:

    Finally, if you are convinced that to answer one of your questions one has to actually answer a few others first, it might be worth to point this out when asking (could be that others don’t agree) or maybe consider asking those questions first.

    Before I write you off, I will give you one more chance to tell me what in the name of sense you are talking about.

  24. 24
    hrun0815 says:

    Before I write you off, I will give you one more chance to tell me what in the name of sense you are talking about.

    Wow. Thank you for your generosity. 🙂

    Pay close attention to the wording: “How do you decide if the government has overstepped its authority?” What signs would you look for? What standards would you think had been violated? Its a question about analysis, not action.

    In order to address those issues, you must first know the purpose of government (what it is supposed to be doing) and the limits of government (what it is not supposed to be doing). Only then can you know when government has overstepped its authority.

    You are pretty clear that to answer your question you actually have to first answer to questions that take precedence: What is the purpose of government? What are the limits of government.

    Was this so hard to figure out? Was it confusing because in your post you didn’t actually frame this as two questions– even though they clearly are questions that need to be answered first?

  25. 25
    hrun0815 says:

    I don’t know why you continue to complain about that which you will not specify.

    and

    Now you are saying that it is too much trouble for you to go back let me know which question you had in mind? You left it all up to me, so I went to the trouble for you.

    Meanwhile, you complain about my perfectly reasonable exhortation for bloggers to read my questions before responding to them?–Are you for real?

    I do not know how much clearer I could be when I wrote:

    I don’t actually demand that you do back and answer them so I don’t feel compelled to search out the post numbers for you or CP here. It is just funny that you make a big point about somebody getting the thrust of your questions wrong when attempting an answer.

    Just as there are reasons for why you did not answer my questions (maybe they were too hard, too stupid, you didn’t read them right, you misunderstood them, you had no time, you just didn’t feel like it, …) maybe you want to give others the same benefit of the doubt.

    In addition, if you want to know WHY I do not seek answer to those questions I’ll also gladly clarify: I do not think that discussion is particularly fruitful anymore so I am not that interested to drag it out. In the end I know already what it boils down to. In fact, KF’s post made it abundantly clear (even though his arguments are anything but).

    EDIT: What a great example of what I mean.

    StephenB writes: “When you use “the natural moral law” as a phrase, knowing you to be a conservative Catholic like Ed Feser, are you referring to Aquinas’ Summa Theologica?”

    This is actually from a post from Aurelio and not from me. So I could respond to this by writing:

    “StephenB, one of the problems I have in interacting with non-materialists is their proclivity to answer questions that I do not ask and ignore the ones that I do ask.”

    Do you think that would be fair and do you justice?

  26. 26
    StephenB says:

    You are pretty clear that to answer your question you actually have to first answer to questions that take precedence: What is the purpose of government? What are the limits of government.

    Well, yes, of course. In order to know if government has overstepped its authority, it is first necessary to know the purpose of government and the limits to its authority.

    If, for example, the purpose of government is simply to protect natural rights and guard against hostile forces, and nothing else, then it is overstepping its authority if it presumes to take care of everyone, dictate their behavior, and pass hate crime laws.

    If, on the other hand, the purpose of government is to take care if everyone, dictate their behavior, and protect everyone’s feelings, then it is not overstepping its authority if it presumes to do those things because that is what it was established to do.

    Thus, one cannot decide if government is doing what it is not supposed to do (overstepping its boundaries) unless we specify ahead of time what it is supposed to do (what its boundaries are).

    That is why I asked the infamous question: “How do you know if the government has overstepped its authority?” I was hoping that some materialist would actually give the matter some thought and say, “You can’t know until you know what government is supposed to be doing in the first place.”

  27. 27
    StephenB says:

    hroun0815

    Just as there are reasons for why you did not answer my questions (maybe they were too hard, too stupid, you didn’t read them right, you misunderstood them, you had no time, you just didn’t feel like it, …) maybe you want to give others the same benefit of the doubt.

    Just for fun, I decided to go back to the exchange to find out what really happened.

    You wrote:

    “The way you build societies on this is that you have secular governments with man-made laws, man-made enforcement of the laws, and man-made punishment if laws are not followed. There are countless societies that function like this just fine.”

    Clearly, you were not following the debate since you were claiming that secular governments “function just fine,” which is hardly the issue. Hitler’s government functioned just fine. The issue is whether or not human rights are protected.

    So, I responded @125:

    “You have not addressed the issue at all. The question is this: Which principles do you use to inform those civil laws? On what basis do you determine which laws are fair and just. According to your answer, whatever the secular government comes up with is just fine. If that government decides to enslave blacks, no problem. If that same government changes its collective mind and decides to free blacks, that’s just fine. If that same government decides to revert to slavery, that is just fine. Is that your position? If not, then what is your point. You have presented no argument except to say that a secular government should be able to pass any law that it pleases. That is not a rational position.”

    As is evident from those passages, I asked you several questions. Your response @126 was to ignore them and ask me a few questions of your own. Now I understand why you didn’t want to get specific. It was you who was evading my questions,

    I will tell you plainly that I cannot make heads or tails out of any of your questions because they are not even written in sentence form. However, if you care to reframe them into comprehensible prose, I will make an attempt to answer.

    At the bottom of the page, you ask these questions (again ignoring mine)

    How about a counter question: What if that government decided that adultery was legal? What if that government decided abortion was legal? What if that government decided gay marriage was legal? Is it your position then that the secular government in the US not able to pass any law it pleases?

    I don’t know how to respond to the first three since they are so open ended and so lacking in precision that one could answer each one a hundred different ways.

    Let’s take the first one: What if that government decided that adultery was legal? There is really nothing there to respond to until you reframe the question in a comprehensible way. You might ask, for example, If a secular government passes a law that adultery is legal, would it be violating the natural moral law? Or, you might ask, IF a secular government passes a law that adultery is wrong, would it be overstepping its boundaries? Or, perhaps you might have something else in mind. I can’t do that work for you.

    The reason, then, I didn’t answer your questions is because they were simply not precise enough to have any substance to them. Sorry. I tried to spare you by shrugging it off, but you wouldn’t have any of it.

    Meanwhile, let’s not forget that it was you who evaded my questions.

  28. 28
    Eugen says:

    I realize when you are talking to materialist/atheist you need three things:
    1 Patience
    2 Patience
    3 Patience

  29. 29
    Eugen says:

    StephenB

    Indeed who decides when government is overstepping its authority? Why government of course. Government is a group of corrupted power hungry people. They are in business of running casinos, lotteries and spending our money irresponsibly. Why would I put my trust in such organization on questions of morality and ethics or anything else?

  30. 30
    JWTruthInLove says:

    Barry-chan @5:

    The phenomenon you describe

    I was pointing out how trinitarians resort to the same “aggressively stupid” things (rule of the mob) the materialists resort to.

  31. 31
    hrun0815 says:

    Why would I put my trust in such organization on questions of morality and ethics or anything else?

    Why indeed would anybody. Do you know of a single person who thinks that any action is moral or ethical just because it is government-sanctioned?

  32. 32
    StephenB says:

    Eugen

    Indeed who decides when government is overstepping its authority? Why government of course.

    Yes, its a little like when people grade their own term paper. Surprise, surprise, its always an A. For me, the question always boils down to this: “To whom are you accountable?” If the answer is, “nobody,” watch out!

  33. 33
    Eugen says:

    Hrun

    “Do you know of a single person who thinks that any action is moral or ethical just because it is government-sanctioned?”

    Yes I know of millions. I lived in Communism where there was a law which allowed killing of political opponents. Perfectly legal , even duty of patriotic citizen.

    Today in a modern Western democracy there is a law which allows aborting tiny humans. Perfectly legal, even duty of a modern human.

    There are many examples. Somebody more eloquent could possibly write more, English is my second language.

    If government sanctioned a law, it doesn’t mean it’s right. It may be fashion of the era.

    StephenB

    That’s an excellent example. I appreciate your wisdom and of many other contributors on UD.

    I read article on First Things linked above by Barry . Article says: “Only the Church can really limit the state, which is why the existence of the Church is a perennial problem for it.”

    Church, traditions, family values, commonsense must be wiped out to establish a new atheist control.

  34. 34
    hrun0815 says:

    Yes I know of millions.

    Fine. I doubt you actually know million and I doubt that you can actually be certain about this, yet it is likely nothing that can be proven or disproven.

    But take your abortion example: Clearly this is, in many countries, state sanctioned. Yet, there is a big divide between whether people think this action is moral or not. And even in communities that are likely moral objectivists (for example catholics) there is not unanimous agreement about the morality of abortion.

    So, I guess I should have been more restrictive: I personally do not know anybody who believes an action is moral or ethical just because it is state sanctioned (and vice versa of course).

  35. 35
    DNA_Jock says:

    Eugen,

    From your choice of examples – state-allowed activities that you and many others find immoral – you are agreeing with hrun.
    His question was “Do you know anyone who equates morality with what-is-state-sanctioned?”

    Your millions of examples obviously do not.

  36. 36
    hrun0815 says:

    DNA_Jock, I assumed that Eugen meant that in Communism there were patriotic citizens that agreed that killing political opponents was perfectly moral. However it is clear that not everybody thought so (I presume that Eugen did not).

    So what this shows is that my statement was too broad. Of course for every law you will find citizens that think it is moral and others that find it immoral. I still think this dichotomy clearly demonstrates that laws do not generally make a population think it is moral.

    Obviously abortion is, like I suggested, another one of those examples. Like we can add things like gay marriage, maybe gay sex, extramarital sex, gambling, eating pork, wearing mixed fabric, … and a host of other things that are state sanctioned but that not everyone finds moral.

  37. 37
    Eugen says:

    Hrun

    I don’t know millions of people. I’m not Bruce Springsteen 🙂

    I know about (of) millions who blindly accepted and accept government laws without much thinking. If killing human is permitted by law it doesn’t mean it’s right.

  38. 38
    hrun0815 says:

    I know about (of) millions who blindly accepted and accept government laws without much thinking. If killing human is permitted by law it doesn’t mean it’s right.

    And I know of hundreds of millions in the US, too. There are a lot of humans legally killed by the US officially (e.g. police force, legal system, war, extra-ordinary killing of suspected terrorists, …) and you will find many, many, many people agreeing with some or all of those form of killing.

    However, for your argument to carry more weight you’d have to show that these people believe in the morality of such killing BECAUSE it is state sanctioned. For example, what if the government outlawed the death penalty. Do you think the people who the the death penalty is moral right now would reconsider and change their opinion?

    I have my doubts.

  39. 39
    DNA_Jock says:

    Exactly, hrun –

    I cannot imagine there are very many people (if anyone, over the age of 3) who think “It must be moral, because it’s legal.”

    We each move past that logic when we first encounter unjust authority. Usually involving the re-distribution of candy.

  40. 40
    Eugen says:

    Controlling the “re-distribution of candy”……that’s how mafioso starts.

    DNA Jock

    I’m wondering do you or other atheists think it’s moral (or right) to abort human organism?

  41. 41
    hrun0815 says:

    I’m wondering do you or other atheists think it’s moral (or right) to abort human organism?

    This is yet again very strange for me. It appears to me that you don’t get out much or you don’t follow much of the debate around abortion in the public press.

    I realize that when people say ‘abortion should be legal’ or ‘abortion should be illegal’ they don’t explicitly take a position on the morality of the matter. However, one can probably safely assume that the majority of folks who believe abortion should be legal also think that it is morally justifiable.

    With that out of the way we should just look at some polls. I believe that in the US there is about a 50:50 split on whether or not abortion should be legal. I would think that this means that many or most atheists believe so. However, since there are certainly not 50% atheists in the US there are also a number of self-identified religious people that think so. I seem to remember that among white catholics it’s also about 50:50.

    Does that answer your question in #43?

  42. 42
    DNA_Jock says:

    What hrun said.

    To answer the question Eugen directed at me:

    I’m wondering do you or other atheists think it’s moral (or right) to abort human organism?

    I am not an atheist, and “Yes, under certain circumstances.”

    P.S. re “that’s how mafioso starts.” What a horrid thing to say about my parents.
    😉

  43. 43
    rvb8 says:

    “Yes, Mobs Are Famous for Respecting the Rights of Individuals.”

    I think this is why we have government; the lesser of two evils. What do you want, ‘mob’ rule or ‘government’? What ever the evils of government, they will be trumped by ungoverned humanity. In the past when we had theocracies in the west, it was largely government by passion and emotion, and the Book. We outgrew that.

    Locke said in his ‘Two Treatise’, that government had its origin in the will of the people, and that that government could be brought low (rebelled against) when that ‘will’ disintergrated.(There’s an answer to your question StephenB.) Earlier, Hobbes, in his ‘Leviathan’, said that any government, be it monarchy, statist, or even democracy (although he thought democracy the most unstable), was prefferrable to the ‘mob’. He had seen ‘the mob’ at work through the English revolution, and thought that uncontrolled humanity was lower than animals; he was of course right, ungoverned humanity is despicable.

    This overarching love affair with the beauty of God’s creation (i.e. humanity) is fairytale nonsense. If IDers cannot see our ‘created?’ potential as ‘mob’ animals (sprinkled with occasional selflessness) which we display time and time again (negro lynchings in the south), then they are truly inane truth deniars.

  44. 44
    Robert Byers says:

    rvb8
    Your wrong. I just finished reading somewhat Lockes two.
    He clearly said god is the final boss. The people simply agree that to ensure Gods laws and have government then they have a contract for the type of government.
    Yet its a contract even if a dictarship.
    If the contract is broken then the people no longer owe obeidence and can replace the leader.
    This is what happened in 1688 and they used the language of Locke.
    Locke did not say the people decide what is right and wrong in the main things.
    God does. All government comes from God finally. To obey his main points.
    In obeying him we are and must be free. So a government can never take our freedom/property.
    Our freedom allows a contract for government. But keep the contract.
    In our nations today the contracts are being broken like crazy.
    Locke was on the puritan side and not the other side.

  45. 45
    rvb8 says:

    ‘Two Treaties’ was written in direct response to Sir Robert Flimer’s ‘Patriarcha’.

    Now there is a book you should read RB, it is full of the divine right of kings, of how god designates leaders and men must follow, of the father being the natural head of the family, of rebellion being against god’s design; everything you hold dear. Although Locke was a religious man he sought to put government squarely in the hands of secular man; sorry! Locke hated the idea of relying on the divine for instruction on government, hence ‘Two Treaties’. People create IT, and people can decreate IT.

    However, writing where he was, when he was, kind of made the references to God impossible to leave out. He also discussed matters with Isaac Newton, who also prayed to sky fairies, thus proving at once that genius can also have wrong ideas.

    However, two things, one I don’t believe you’ve read Locke, so you have been caught in that classic Christian connumdrum of lying for Jesus. Come on now Robert, did you really read, “Two Treaties of Government: In the Former, The False Principles, and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer,and His Followers, Are Detected and Overthrown. The Latter is an Essay Concerning The True Original, Extent, and End of Civil Government.’? Understand, liar for Jesus?

  46. 46
    Seversky says:

    I would also argue that “libertarian free will” cannot exist for Christians who believe in a God who is both omniscient and has demonstrated a knowledge of future events.

  47. 47
    niwrad says:

    Seversky #51

    “I would also argue that “libertarian free will” cannot exist for Christians who believe in a God who is both omniscient and has demonstrated a knowledge of future events..”

    This would be true if we and God share the same time. In fact your argument is as follows: an agent B does an action ‘b’ in time t2; no agent A cannot know ‘b’ in a time t1 anterior to t2. The argument presupposes that agent A and B share the same time. But God knows in no specific time tx, because God is eternal (= non time). Therefore your reasoning doesn’t apply. For God there is no past and no future whatsoever. So we can be free in our time and God omniscient in the non-time.

  48. 48
    StephenB says:

    Aurelio Smith

    No you don’t have to “know” anything for certain. You can be pragmatic, see what works and change what doesn’t. In a democracy, that can happen.

    If you don’t understand why boundaries must be established and defined before boundaries can be violated, I cannot help you.

  49. 49
    Seversky says:

    niwrad @ 52

    This would be true if we and God share the same time. In fact your argument is as follows: an agent B does an action ‘b’ in time t2; no agent A cannot know ‘b’ in a time t1 anterior to t2. The argument presupposes that agent A and B share the same time. But God knows in no specific time tx, because God is eternal (= non time). Therefore your reasoning doesn’t apply. For God there is no past and no future whatsoever. So we can be free in our time and God omniscient in the non-time.

    My argument presupposes a God who is omniscient in the sense that He knows all that exists to be known. He also either exists outside our spacetime or is omnipresent throughout our spacetime. If this omniscient God demonstrates knowledge of what is to us the future then it already exists to be known. If the future already exists such that it can be known by God then it is already determined. It is bound to happen whatever we might think or decide. On that basis alone, we have no libertarian free will.

    Que sera, sera.

  50. 50
    niwrad says:

    Seversky #54

    You rephrase the argument but to say “If this omniscient God demonstrates knowledge of what is to us the future then it already exists to be known” is like to say “An agent B does an action ‘b’ in time t2; God knows ‘b’ in a time t1 anterior to t2”, as in my previous comment. In fact “it already exists to be known” is equivalent to “God knows ‘b’ in a time t1 anterior to t2”. To exist is to exist in time (or, time is attribute of existence) by definition of existence. Again we have erroneously God in time. God does not *exist*, God *is* (it is not simply a matter of terminology).

  51. 51
    Robert Byers says:

    rvb8
    You falsely accuse me and find me guilty. Is this a habit in your dealings with people?
    I did read Locke on the internet almost completely.
    Did you read him? I bet you did but got it wrong. jUst as evolutionists read biology wrong!
    LOcke was NOT forced to include concepts of god.
    It was essential to his points. he was a evangelical or rather a puritan.
    his whole point was that god decided as a final boss what was right or wrong. hOwever man to obey must have a government and this therefore must be by contract amongst groups of segregated men.
    if the contract is broken the men can overthrow the human boss.
    this was the justification for 1688.AD.
    Lockes opponents were the ones rejecting christian ideas. they were using religious stuff but only to frustrate freedom of Englishmen.
    Locke was all about a final boss being GOd. the authority behind our right to govern ourselves and not be slaves to men.
    today courts and others seek once more to overthrow God and free men in deciding what is right and wrong.
    gay marriage is just one of those things.

  52. 52
    rvb8 says:

    Sir Robert Filmer is your hero RB, go read him.

    I don’t ‘falsely accuse’ you. I said you did not read ‘Two Treatise’, and you did not. How is it ‘false’ when it is true? I find that Christianity and Truth are occasional bedfellows, when it suits them.

    RB, I am surprised they tolerate you here, as I know for a fact that you and your childish debating skills are regularly, sent to ‘the bathroom wall’ at Pandasthumb.

    You are lying for Jesus, I understand that. However you must understand that your lies will not be tolerated by right thinking people, and that your insignificant babble can, and should, be ignored.

    You are like the child who has found the hiding place of the final actor in a game of ‘Hide and Seek’. You jump up and down squeeling delightedly saying, ‘i’ve found him, i’ve found him’. You take great pride in your mediocrity and can’t for the life of you understand why no one else can see your achievement.

    Wallow in your mediocrity, it suits you, your god, and your vague thought processess.

    By bye!

Leave a Reply