Yes, Mobs Are Famous for Respecting the Rights of Minorities

_{Barry Arrington
January 15, 2015

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

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

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.

Comments

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?StephenB_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

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.StephenB_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

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.hrun0815_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
03:19 AM
3
03
19
AM
PDT}

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?StephenB_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
02:43 AM
2
02
43
AM
PDT}

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.hrun0815_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
02:38 AM
2
02
38
AM
PDT}

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.hrun0815_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

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.StephenB_{January 16, 2015
January
01
Jan
16
16
2015
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT}

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.Mark Frank_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

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.StephenB_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

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.Robert Byers_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

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.hrun0815_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT}

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%.goodusername_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

"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.rvb8_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PDT}

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.News_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT}

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.rvb8_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

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 NewsNews_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

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?rvb8_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

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).
Barry Arrington_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

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.News_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

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/news/franklin-graham-activist-judges-are-overturning-the-will-of-the-people-in-gay-marriage-rulings-128056/
JWTruthInLove_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

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.Barry Arrington_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

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.News_{January 15, 2015
January
01
Jan
15
15
2015
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply