So Easy To Be An Atheist!

[Tassman]

Well yes, those with the most power do get to define what is right, and you are correct they can not make you believe what they believe. But so what, in that instance what you believe has no moral weight, or influence.

Ultimately, those with most power are communities, which is why tyrants get overthrown.

No, what I'm saying is that you have no logical ground to argue against what the powerful deem as moral or not.

It is YOU who has no “logical ground to argue against what the powerful deem as moral or not”. YOUR “logical argument” is based upon a premise, i.e. God, that can’t be shown to exist.

You need to read Locke's second treatise of government, which had a profound effect on the Founders. He grounded human and property rights in God. The unalienable Rights of the Founders were not possible apart from God. And this gave us a moral and logical rationale to throw off the tyranny of the King.

Locke’s primary influence was the Enlightenment and his idea of God was seen though this lens, not that which you commonly ascribe to him. His ideas were grounded in reason and belief in scientific empiricism NOT Christianity as YOU perceive Christianity to be...for one he was a Unitarian.

Well I can find no other source for unalienable human rights than God, can you?

Once again, your “source for unalienable human rights” is grounded upon a premise which cannot be shown to be true, i.e. God. Human rights derive from the natural evolution of human behaviour to ensure the survival of the family and community. They’re not handed down from of high by a fictional deity.

[seer]

No - they get to enforce what THEY believe is right. No one can define what IS right for me other than me.

It has moral weight - for me. It has influence, for those I influence. If I am weaker, that will be, by definition, a smaller set than the stronger person/group.

I know you're saying that. You've said it over and over again, and I've responded to it over and over again. Responding again doesn't seem to me to have any value; you're not getting it. So I'll leave you to your misconception.

Right, and you again have no logical reason for why your values would be superior to those of the powerful or majority.

I've read Locke, and I know what his views were (though they are admittedly dusty brain cells. All of what you report is a matter of history. Some day, I suspect we will look back on it and say, "Locke neglected the biggest tyrant of them all: the man who claims authority to specify what a god he cannot even show exists wants." Ultimately, religion is the last tyranny of man.

Nonsense Carp, men don't need God to to be tyrannical. They worse tyrannies of the last century were initiated by atheists.

I have to admit that I am not big on "inalienable" rights. It is a theocentric language. Rights are rooted in our nature as humans, and the general social contract (e.g., the "golden rule.") They are rooted in reason. Rooting them in "god says so" when no one can even demonstrate such a being actually exists is an exercise in folly. As society more and more secularizes and lets go of its ancient gods, they will recognize more and more that rights may be "natural," but they are not 'inalienable." We see freedom of speech as a right because we value what type of society it creates. Many countries do not do so, so apparently "freedom of speech is not "inalienable" because the right can and is given away or taken away. So is the right to liberty - and life. Even here in the U.S., we have capital punishment - so the state apparently can terminate someone's right to life. We have more people in prison than any other country, so the state can withdraw the right of liberty.

We pay lip service to "inalienable rights," but they do not exist in actuality.

Unalienable does not mean that men or state will not attempt to remove or minimize our rights, but when they do, as with with the Founders, we have a moral and logical justification for resistance. In your world the state or collective is god...

[carpedm9587]

Right, and you again have no logical reason for why your values would be superior to those of the powerful or majority.

I increasingly get the impression that you think by repeating the same unsupported assertion over and over again, you will actually make it true. Trump uses that approach. It actually does convince/convert some people. I'm not one of them.

Nonsense Carp, men don't need God to to be tyrannical. They worse tyrannies of the last century were initiated by atheists.

You misunderstand my meaning, Seer. I don't think god is tyrannical. I don't think god exists, remember? So if my beliefs are true, then (from that worldview), religions are nothing more than one group of people (religious leaders) exerting control/influence over other people (followers) by appealing to the authority of a non-existent god. Using that authority, they can "herd the flock" in pretty much any direction. "Tyrannical" does not have to mean "atrocities." It can also mean "inordinate control."

Unalienable does not mean that men or state will not attempt to remove or minimize our rights, but when they do, as with with the Founders, we have a moral and logical justification for resistance. In your world the state or collective is god...

The term "inalienable" is defined to mean "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." By that definition, no right is inalienable, because anyone can forfeit any right and anyone with significant enough power can withhold any right. Perhaps one can argue that one can take away my life - but they cannot take away my right to my life. The argument seems a bit specious to me. Once I cease to exist - I cease to have any ability to HAVE a right.

[seer]

I increasingly get the impression that you think by repeating the same unsupported assertion over and over again, you will actually make it true. Trump uses that approach. It actually does convince/convert some people. I'm not one of them.

What is an unsupported assertion? That you can't make a logical case as to why your values are superior?

You misunderstand my meaning, Seer. I don't think god is tyrannical. I don't think god exists, remember? So if my beliefs are true, then (from that worldview), religions are nothing more than one group of people (religious leaders) exerting control/influence over other people (followers) by appealing to the authority of a non-existent god. Using that authority, they can "herd the flock" in pretty much any direction. "Tyrannical" does not have to mean "atrocities." It can also mean "inordinate control."

The point is men do not need a god to be tyrannical, the atheists of the last century proved that, as do the lockstep leftists of today.

The term "inalienable" is defined to mean "unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor." By that definition, no right is inalienable, because anyone can forfeit any right and anyone with significant enough power can withhold any right. Perhaps one can argue that one can take away my life - but they cannot take away my right to my life. The argument seems a bit specious to me. Once I cease to exist - I cease to have any ability to HAVE a right.

Again, the ideal of such right offers moral and logical justification for resistance. The Founders knew that these rights could be trampled, but they still existed because God is the source not man. That we are not sheep to be herded by the state, to use your metaphor.

[carpedm9587]

What is an unsupported assertion? That you can't make a logical case as to why your values are superior?

I've never claimed to be superior, Seer. In philosophy, we call that a strawman. Since I didn't make that claim, I have no further response.

The point is men do not need a god to be tyrannical, the atheists of the last century proved that, as do the lockstep leftists of today.

I also never claimed that men need god to be tyrannical. I merely pointed out that, if my beliefs are true (which obviously I believe they are), then religion is a form of community control - ergo a form of tyranny. Obviously, tyranny takes other forms as well.

Again, the ideal of such right offers moral and logical justification for resistance. The Founders knew that these rights could be trampled, but they still existed because God is the source not man. That we are not sheep to be herded by the state, to use your metaphor.

We are not sheep to be herded by the state because we are independent, sentient, moral agents. It's not more complicated than that. We surrender rights to the group to gain benefits from the group. Each of us determines the boundary of that dynamic. We don't need a god to understand that dynamic. That the FF framed this in terms of god is not a surprise - they were theists in an age of theism. That it is necessarily so is not a case I believe you can make, but you are welcome to try.

[Tassman]

What is an unsupported assertion?

Your unsupported assertion is that God exists and provides the premise of your unsound deductive argument about the source of morality.

That you can't make a logical case as to why your values are superior?

It is the community that determines moral values, not individuals...other than their individual contributions to the communal debate.

The point is men do not need a god to be tyrannical, the atheists of the last century proved that, as do the lockstep leftists of today.

All men can be tyrannical, atheist or religious, just as all men can overthrow tyranny as has been demonstrated throughout history.

Again, the ideal of such right offers moral and logical justification for resistance. The Founders knew that these rights could be trampled, but they still existed because God is the source not man. That we are not sheep to be herded by the state, to use your metaphor.

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” —John Adams.

[seer]

I've never claimed to be superior, Seer. In philosophy, we call that a strawman. Since I didn't make that claim, I have no further response.

So you agree that your moral opinion is never superior to its opposite.

I also never claimed that men need god to be tyrannical. I merely pointed out that, if my beliefs are true (which obviously I believe they are), then religion is a form of community control - ergo a form of tyranny. Obviously, tyranny takes other forms as well.

And religion can also be key to social cohesion. And as with the number of studies I linked it also makes men happier, more confident, healthier and less anxious.

We are not sheep to be herded by the state because we are independent, sentient, moral agents. It's not more complicated than that. We surrender rights to the group to gain benefits from the group. Each of us determines the boundary of that dynamic. We don't need a god to understand that dynamic. That the FF framed this in terms of god is not a surprise - they were theists in an age of theism. That it is necessarily so is not a case I believe you can make, but you are welcome to try.

Well no, the Founders could have grounded rights in the collective or under the guise of the social contract, but they didn't. Linking rights to God took human vagaries out of the picture. So when leftists like you come along and attempt to remove a natural right (the right of self defense, Second Amendment) we on my side have the rational and logical basis for resistance. The Founders just didn't tell the King that they had a different opinion than his, they said he was violating God given natural rights.

[Roy]

What is an unsupported assertion? That you can't make a logical case as to why your values are superior?

I've never claimed to be superior, Seer. In philosophy, we call that a strawman. Since I didn't make that claim, I have no further response.

So you agree that your moral opinion is never superior to its opposite.

This is a perfect example of the blatant misrepresentation that forms seer's main debate technique.

[seer]

This is a perfect example of the blatant misrepresentation that forms seer's main debate technique.

Hey idiot, if Carp doesn't believe his moral views are superior then why does he hold them? What is the logical case for holding views that he doesn't believe are superior to other views?

[JimL]

Hey idiot, if Carp doesn't believe his moral views are superior then why does he hold them? What is the logical case for holding views that he doesn't believe are superior to other views?

What carp said was that he never claimed that he himself was superior, not that he didn't believe his moral beliefs to be true. It would be pretty silly to think that what you believe to be true, you also believe to be false. Of course he believes his moral views are correct, don't you?

[Roy]

This is a perfect example of the blatant misrepresentation that forms seer's main debate technique.

Hey idiot, if Carp doesn't believe his moral views are superior then why does he hold them? What is the logical case for holding views that he doesn't believe are superior to other views?

[seer mode]
So you agree that you were misrepresenting Carpedm's views?
[/seer mode]

[seer]

So you agree that you were misrepresenting Carpedm's views?

No idiot, I'm trying to find out; if he doesn't believe his moral views are superior then why does he hold them? What is the basis or logic?

[carpedm9587]

So you agree that your moral opinion is never superior to its opposite.

It is relatively and subjectively superior - or I would not hold it. I cannot make absolute/objective claims from a relative/subjective system. You're basically back to Technique #1. You cannot seem to get away from it, nor even to see that you're doing it over and over again.

And religion can also be key to social cohesion. And as with the number of studies I linked it also makes men happier, more confident, healthier and less anxious.

Of course it can. There are good and bad aspects to pretty much everything. But then again, a local school system can be the basis for social cohesion. An emerging issue with wide impact can be a basis for social cohesion. Having children can be a basis for social cohesion. Something that "makes men happier, more confident, healthier and less anxious," is not an assurance that it is true. And you might note that Prozac and Ritalin can do those things too.

Well no, the Founders could have grounded rights in the collective or under the guise of the social contract, but they didn't. Linking rights to God took human vagaries out of the picture. So when leftists like you come along and attempt to remove a natural right (the right of self defense, Second Amendment) we on my side have the rational and logical basis for resistance. The Founders just didn't tell the King that they had a different opinion than his, they said he was violating God given natural rights.

As I have noted multiple times now, Seer, linking things to a nonexistent being may make you feel good, but it does not make it true. Linking rights to a non existent god may give everyone the sense of "stability," but since the reality is that these rights are grounded in what men think about this god, it is actually just as subject to human vagaries. And we have seen exactly that over the years. People have been using "god" as the justification for both extreme good and extreme ill since the dawn of men. It doesn't make the belief in god true. It doesn't make the claim one based in reality.

[seer]

It is relatively and subjectively superior - or I would not hold it. I cannot make absolute/objective claims from a relative/subjective system. You're basically back to Technique #1. You cannot seem to get away from it, nor even to see that you're doing it over and over again.

OK, so you do believe that your view is superior. You just can't back it up deductively/logically.

Of course it can. There are good and bad aspects to pretty much everything. But then again, a local school system can be the basis for social cohesion. An emerging issue with wide impact can be a basis for social cohesion. Having children can be a basis for social cohesion. Something that "makes men happier, more confident, healthier and less anxious," is not an assurance that it is true. And you might note that Prozac and Ritalin can do those things too.

Right, so the point being that belief in God can be socially good as well as bad, personally helpful or not. So why bring up belief in God as a social negative in the first place?

As I have noted multiple times now, Seer, linking things to a nonexistent being may make you feel good, but it does not make it true.

Doesn't make it false either.

Linking rights to a non existent god may give everyone the sense of "stability," but since the reality is that these rights are grounded in what men think about this god, it is actually just as subject to human vagaries. And we have seen exactly that over the years. People have been using "god" as the justification for both extreme good and extreme ill since the dawn of men. It doesn't make the belief in god true. It doesn't make the claim one based in reality.

I was merely presenting the rationale of the Founders, points I happen to agree with.

[carpedm9587]

OK, so you do believe that your view is superior. You just can't back it up deductively/logically.

No - I can back it up deductively and logically - in a subjective/relative framework. You now seem to be arguing that deduction and logic are only valid in absolute/objective frameworks. That is not true, as I have shown over and over and over again - and you continue to ignore. You just don't seem to get it.

1. I prefer pizza for lunch (subjective statement)
2. That restaurant sells pizza (objectively true statement relative to that restaurant)
3. I should go to that restaurant for lunch (logical conclusion from premises 1 & 2)

Is is a perfectly rational, logical, syllogism - the heart of a logical argument. It is validly constructed and sound if the two premises are true.

Right, so the point being that belief in God can be socially good as well as bad, personally helpful or not.

Correct.

So why bring up belief in God as a social negative in the first place?

Because if god does not exist (as I believe) religion is simply about control. Sure - "controlled" people can be happier - have less stress. That does not make their life "better." They are building their lives on a false perception of the universe. And it is rife with dangers. All it takes is for the "controllers" to adopt a self-serving agenda - and the "controlled" will line up to drink the Koolaid, fight the government, wait for the comet, etc. That is a possibility with ANY controlling system - even governments. That is why a democratic government is the best alternative. In a sense, religions are dictatorships, without an actual dictator. Kind of a "Wizard of Oz" effect...

Doesn't make it false either.

What makes it false is the absence of a god.

I was merely presenting the rationale of the Founders, points I happen to agree with.

I'm sure you do. My point was that I never take what a person says as gospel because of who/what he/she is. I don't care they were the FFs. I only care if they were right. Sometimes they were. Sometimes not.