Page 110 of 119 FirstFirst ... 1060100108109110111112 ... LastLast
Results 1,091 to 1,100 of 1190

Thread: Atheism And Moral Progress

  1. #1091
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,495
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1090
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Right, but like with Carp we still just end up going down the rabbit hole.
    Because the statement does not say anything - in your worldview. It's a tautology.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  2. #1092
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,356
    Amen (Given)
    1630
    Amen (Received)
    4900
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Your words, Seer: authority is about "power, right, and ability to enforce."

    No - it is about the source of "right to govern" It is the very foundation of our democracy - the core concept espoused by the founding fathers. The "right" to govern must come from somewhere. Our FFs believed (as I do) that it arises from the governed.
    Again Carp, you are importing consent into the definition. An earthly King has the right to rule whether you give you consent or not.


    In a government that is not based on "rule by consent of the governed," (e.g., dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, etc.) the government has no authority to rule.
    That is just silly Carp, who says they don't have the right to rule? It would come down to your opinion against a King or Dictator - and in your relative world neither opinion is objectively more correct than the other.


    In a government that IS based on "rule by the consent of the governed," the primary means of expressing consent is accepting citizenship. That is the core of our citizenship oath. So you cannot "be a citizen" and "not consent." If you don't consent, renounce your citizenship and go live elsewhere.

    That was not the question, does the government have the right to punish criminals who don't agree with the social contract by break the laws of the land?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  3. #1093
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,356
    Amen (Given)
    1630
    Amen (Received)
    4900
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    Because the statement does not say anything - in your worldview. It's a tautology.
    What exactly is a tautology since I say that God is supremely powerful?
    Last edited by seer; 08-12-2019 at 08:26 AM.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  4. #1094
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,495
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1090
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Again Carp, you are importing consent into the definition. An earthly King has the right to rule whether you give you consent or not.
    No. And the FF's didn't agree with you either.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    That is just silly Carp, who says they don't have the right to rule?
    Me. The FF's. Many people who believe a government should be "of the people, for the people, and by the people."

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    It would come down to your opinion against a King or Dictator - and in your relative world neither opinion is objectively more correct than the other.
    Yes it would - and since we are talking about who has the "right" to "rule" me, I think I'll go with my opinion. But if you want to grant the right to determine who will rule you to someone other than yourself, knock yourself out. It's no skin off my nose.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    That was not the question, does the government have the right to punish criminals who don't agree with the social contract by break the laws of the land?
    Of course it answers the question, Seer. If they are citizens, yes. Citizenship is their consent to be governed. If they live within or otherwise freely enter the boundary of territory determined to be governed by the appointed body, yes. Willingly entering a country governed by such a body constitutes consent. That is why our laws also apply to immigrants and visitors - even the undocumented ones.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  5. #1095
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,495
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1090
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    What exactly is a tautology since I say that God is supremely powerful?
    See my response to Adrift.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  6. #1096
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,356
    Amen (Given)
    1630
    Amen (Received)
    4900
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    No. And the FF's didn't agree with you either.
    Correct, but the general population of England at the time did believe the King had the right to rule. So who is correct?


    Me. The FF's. Many people who believe a government should be "of the people, for the people, and by the people."
    Why are you correct?


    Yes it would - and since we are talking about who has the "right" to "rule" me, I think I'll go with my opinion. But if you want to grant the right to determine who will rule you to someone other than yourself, knock yourself out. It's no skin off my nose.
    And the despot sill rules over whether you agree with that rule or not. Now what?


    Of course it answers the question, Seer. If they are citizens, yes. Citizenship is their consent to be governed. If they live within or otherwise freely enter the boundary of territory determined to be governed by the appointed body, yes. Willingly entering a country governed by such a body constitutes consent. That is why our laws also apply to immigrants and visitors - even the undocumented ones.
    Carp, no one asked for the criminal's consent, and he has explicitly or implicitly denied the social contract by committing crimes - they don't agree with the government's right to rule THEM. Just as you would not agree with the King's right to rule you. Those disagreements however do not remove the authority of the King or the government.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  7. #1097
    tWebber carpedm9587's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    12,495
    Amen (Given)
    26
    Amen (Received)
    1090
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Correct, but the general population of England at the time did believe the King had the right to rule. So who is correct?
    With respect to governance, I subscribe to the philosophy of the FF's.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Why are you correct?
    Because I am a sentient, autonomous person with the right to chose how I will be governed.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    And the despot sill rules over whether you agree with that rule or not. Now what?
    As I said before, Seer, anyone with sufficient power can "over-rule" someone's autonomy, including in moral matters. If you subscribe to a "might makes right" moral framework, you will see that as "perfectly moral." I do not subscribe to a "might makes right" moral framework. I didn't think you did either - but I'm starting to wonder.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Carp, no one asked for the criminal's consent, and he has explicitly or implicitly denied the social contract by committing crimes - they don't agree with the government's right to rule THEM.
    Seer, if they hold citizenship and/or are voluntarily in a country that is ruled by a "consent" model, then they have implicitly given consent. If they don't want to give consent, renounce citizenship and leave town. It's not a complex thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Just as you would not agree with the King's right to rule you.
    Correct - I would not. A king would never have my consent so lacks the right to rule me.

    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Those disagreements however do not remove the authority of the King or the government.
    In your model, apparently not. In mine, a government by/of/for the people has the right to govern. A king does not have such a right simply by virtue of being king. Is it possible for a people to "elect" or "select" a king? Well, the concept of king includes the concept of inheritance of the title by birth, so I don't see how.

    You do realize that you have somewhat painted yourself into an odd political corner. You are suddenly defending the rights of a monarchy while previously being vociferous about the FFs and the personal rights/freedoms they enshrined in the constitution. It is so odd to see you trying to hold the two views simultaneously, oblivious to the implicit conflicts that arise.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 08-12-2019 at 11:33 AM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

  8. #1098
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,356
    Amen (Given)
    1630
    Amen (Received)
    4900
    Quote Originally Posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    With respect to governance, I subscribe to the philosophy of the FF's.
    And?


    Because I am a sentient, autonomous person with the right to chose how I will be governed.
    Isn't that precious, but logically meaningless.


    As I said before, Seer, anyone with sufficient power can "over-rule" someone's autonomy, including in moral matters. If you subscribe to a "might makes right" moral framework, you will see that as "perfectly moral." I do not subscribe to a "might makes right" moral framework. I didn't think you did either - but I'm starting to wonder.
    Again stop accusing me of believing something I don't. The point is you have no rational justification for why your opinion concerning authority is any more correct than the King's.


    Seer, if they hold citizenship and/or are voluntarily in a country that is ruled by a "consent" model, then they have implicitly given consent. If they don't want to give consent, renounce citizenship and leave town. It's not a complex thing.
    One born in this country is a citizen, and if he breaks the law we will jail him, whether he recognizes the government authority OR NOT. His consent to that authority or agreement with the social contract has no meaning as we haul him off to prison.


    Correct - I would not. A king would never have my consent so lacks the right to rule me.
    Except that doesn't matter as he slaps you in the stocks for breaking an edict.

    In your model, apparently not. In mine, a government by/of/for the people has the right to govern. A king does not have such a right simply by virtue of being king. Is it possible for a people to "elect" or "select" a king? Well, the concept of king includes the concept of inheritance of the title by birth, so I don't see how.

    You do realize that you have somewhat painted yourself into an odd political corner. You are suddenly defending the rights of a monarchy while previously being vociferous about the FFs and the personal rights/freedoms they enshrined in the constitution. It is so odd to see you trying to hold the two views simultaneously, oblivious to the implicit conflicts that arise.
    Nonsense Carp, you have just demonstrated that who or what has the right to rule is completely subjective with no opinion objectively more correct than another.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  9. #1099
    tWebber Adrift's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    8,308
    Amen (Given)
    6772
    Amen (Received)
    6525
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Right, but like with Carp we still just end up going down the rabbit hole.
    Yeah, can't really expect much there, I suppose. W L Craig makes the following point concerning the laws of logic and God's morality,

    I donít think that the laws of logic are things, any more than are holes, Wednesdays, or numbers. So while God certainly is the Creator of all that exists, He neednít be thought to be the Creator of logicís laws. Rather Iíd say that the laws of logic are a description of the functioning of Godís mind. The Bible says, ďIn the beginning was the Logos (word, reason), and the Logos was with God and the Logos was GodĒ (John 1.1). God is the supremely logical thinker, and the laws of logic are a reflection of His mind, just as the moral law is a reflection of His character. Just as God did not arbitrarily make up the moral law, so He did not arbitrarily make up the laws of logic.

    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/ques...rules-of-logic

  10. #1100
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    24,356
    Amen (Given)
    1630
    Amen (Received)
    4900
    Quote Originally Posted by Adrift View Post
    Yeah, can't really expect much there, I suppose. W L Craig makes the following point concerning the laws of logic and God's morality,

    I donít think that the laws of logic are things, any more than are holes, Wednesdays, or numbers. So while God certainly is the Creator of all that exists, He neednít be thought to be the Creator of logicís laws. Rather Iíd say that the laws of logic are a description of the functioning of Godís mind. The Bible says, ďIn the beginning was the Logos (word, reason), and the Logos was with God and the Logos was GodĒ (John 1.1). God is the supremely logical thinker, and the laws of logic are a reflection of His mind, just as the moral law is a reflection of His character. Just as God did not arbitrarily make up the moral law, so He did not arbitrarily make up the laws of logic.

    https://www.reasonablefaith.org/ques...rules-of-logic
    Right and that is what I have been saying. The laws of logic are a reflection of God's rational nature.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

  11. Amen Adrift amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •