Do The People Have The Moral Authority To Outlaw Atheism?

Sounds good to me.
Thanks for the comments.
______

At present out national leaders are less than heroic --- when faced with
looting, building-burning when people are known to be inside the building,
and even point blank murder of police officers. I understand that droves of
people are moving out of Democrat controlled cities like Portland, Chicago,
New York City, and Detroit --- which will reduce the tax base and make
conditions even worse in those cities.

JAG

``

 

So you think we should have left the statues of Hitler and Stalin????


**** that!!!

 

Raw land values are way up in remote places and agents are enjoying easy sales at listed price, and those sparsely populated places will benefit from the increased revenue while big cities languish.

 

Yup. Their statues and their writings, the whole ball of wax and all their rotten fish in the kettle.

 

If you read the book of Job and see the torture that God put this poor man through, you would understand why some people choose to be Atheist.

The god of the Bible is a pretty sick ****

 

Full disclosure and free choice. So beautiful.

 

You are having an emotional reaction here not a rational one. I don't love murder and morally support murdering. I have the same emotional hatred to murder you do and were born with. I also still support laws against murder because society and my self-interest are better off when we agree not to do it.

The only reason murder isn't morally wrong is because morality isn't a thing. But there are logical reasons why murder shouldn't happen just like there are logical arguments against socialism or gun control.

Thats like saying that Hitler should have made his extermination camps more habitable for the Jews.

Pigs are extremely intelligent and can recognize themselves in a mirror.

Thats like saying discrimination of black people is ok because it beats slavery.

It depends on how you define "murder." If you arbitrarily define it to only apply to humans, then I'd call you out on that. There is no good reason to do this.

I don't believe in morality so I'm not morally against McDonalds or abortion. Abortion in the first and second trimesters is similar to killing an animal in my view.

Red meat is bad for you too.

Shouldn't you be against unnecessarily taking a life? If an animal is to be killed shouldn't there be a good reason for it if you believe in morality?

What I am saying is that moral people have a moral double standard to how they treat humans and animals.

Again, natural selections is a logical fact that can't not happen. The fittest are more likely to survive. Mutations happen because of the sun. Evolution only stops when life is dead (probably because the sun dies out).

Evolution requires that there be an actual evolutionary pathway. If evolution was easy, every animal would have evolved super-intelligence by now. Instead, the vast majority of species eventually can't make it and go extinct. In 3.5 billion years of evolution a species capable of technology has only evolved once, so it is very rare.

I don't believe in morality so there is no moral reason to love or hate it. I do believe that the world is better off when we cooperate together.

How can you say that I can't prove evolution when you just admitted you aren't well informed about evolution in the first place? How can you really say that theistic evolution is viable when you don't really understand what evolution is all about?

Here is a good link to start.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Its just my opinion. I have my opinion, you have yours.

I don't have great verbal skills because I am not great at public speaking. A lot of people could trounce me on a stage. Winning debates is more about having great verbal and debating skills than actually being an expert or being right. I actually tried to join a debate team and lost a debate on whether Santa Clause is real (I was con).

First you have to see the evidence for common descent and the fossil evidence we have that shows evolution in action. Then its pretty easy to see how each organ evolved along with the rest of the body.

 

That is circular reasoning.
Humans have moral worth because they are human.
Saying that does not demonstrate that humans actually DO have moral worth.
Who says humans have moral worth?
If Bob says they do have moral worth , ,
And Tom says they do NOT have moral worth , ,
Who is there that has the Authority to declare which one is correct?
Where are they located?
What are their names?
Are you one of them?

Also , , ,
Add the fact that on Secular Humanism, Humans and Lions, Bugs, Rats,
and Cockroaches have the same ultimate destiny which is ceasing-to-exist
oblivion. So? So we can know for a fact that, that which ceases to exist no
longer has any moral worth. Nothing is not valuable. This is worth knowing.

Also , , ,
If humanity is the Source of moral worth, then humanity can collectively
decide to impose any Laws they desire to impose on Them-Selves
Humanity can establish and enforce laws that do the following:
~ Outlaw Christianity
~ Outlaw Abortions
~ Outlaw Free Speech
~ Outlaw Liberalism
~ Permit Dueling {with pistols to the death}
~ Legalize Gladiatorial Games {fighting to the death}

What Truth Reality exists to prevent Humanity from doing what is on the list up there?

What Truth Reality exists that has more Power and Authority than The People Of Earth?

And if there is no Truth Reality above The People --- then what Higher Power is there that
can say Collective Humanity is immoral to do the following?
~ Outlaw Christianity
~ Outlaw Abortions
~ Outlaw Free Speech
~ Outlaw Liberalism
~ Permit Dueling {with pistols to the death}
~ Legalize Gladiatorial Games {fighting to the death}

______

Also, , ,
Collective Humanity would have the Authority to establish a Legal Binding Resolution
that said Humans do NOT have moral value.
What Truth Reality or Higher Authority is there that has the Power to say Collective
Humanity would be immoral to establish a Legal Binding Resolution affirming that
Humanity does NOT have moral worth?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

JAG

 

Christianity brought us the Crusades and the Inquisition.

two horrible events in human history.

many innocent people murdered, including many Jews.

 

You cannot have the freedom of religion without having the freedom from religion. Under the first amendment freedom of religion you cannot outlaw atheism. the supreme Court has ruled most of all times that the freedom of religion must include the right to practice no religion at all

 

no, according to the US Constitution, we cannot outlaw atheism.

 

Anything else is absurd; you could be forced into practising several religions at the same time. I mean, would you have to be a Mormom as well as a roman Cathloic, a baptist and an Evangelical?!? Or would you be able to choose only one, it doesn't matter which?

 

Well in some cases they want to ban atheism and requires some form of religion to be, in most cases especially on the far-right they simply want all religion but Christianity banned and the freedom of religion abolished. they want a Christian theocracy with Christian ideals enforced by law. You know gays being executed, since the Bible says if they should be.


Ted Cruz for example originally stated that he didn't think atheism should be a crime but that that should be banned from owning property, being employed, are running for public office,, as well as being banned from receiving government aid such as welfare.
Then he later in a far-right conference supported criminal penalties for being atheist, at the same time he supported the capital punishment for homosexuals

 

well then Cruz is a POS

 

Fascinating and scary wasn't all that emotional.

That's still scary.
Very scary.
Pragmatism as the reason to be against murder is scary.
Scary in my world anyway.
Pragmatism changes with the winds of Time.
My view is that murder is immoral ,because God said it was.
This is not subject to the shifting sands of Pragmatism.

Scary stuff.
Murder is morally wrong.

My view is that's "academic talk" and worthless.
Morality is based on the existence of God.
Without God you have nothing but Human Mouth flapping
out academic sounding gobbly-gook.

There are logical reasons why it SHOULD happen too -- for example
the Logic that Genghis Khan would have "laid on you." -- his logic
regarding his conception of "the greater good."
And , , ,
One man's logic , ,
is another's man's illogic.

And very important , , ,
, , , there is no such thing as the , ,
International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Logical.

Disagree.
Jews are people.
Hogs are hogs.
I love to eat Hogs.
And I will eat them.
But I do not eat Jews.

Good. Maybe they can then appreciate the fact that I love to kill them and eat them.
And that I will continue to do that.
, ,, lol , ,

People are people.
Hogs are Hogs.

You can "call me out" but I will not come out.
And your "reason" is my Un-reason.
I do define "murder" as only applying to humans.
I shall continue to do that.
My view is that applying "murder" to animals is irrational
Neither can I murder ants.
Or snakes.

I can understand why you would not.
Belief in morality is a Faith belief.

Human babies are human.
Animals are animals and I love to eat them
But I do not like to eat them when they are still alive.
So?
So I have to kill them before I can eat them {or somebody does.}
The Freezer Section of my local Food Market is not immoral
and there is no Empirical evidence that proves it is immoral.

My view is that red meat is good for you.
Rib-eye steaks medium rare are good for you.
For all I know they add years to your life.
I ignore the Health Nazis on the subject of food -- the
stuff is highly contradictory --- they tell you one thing
in 2018 and then in 2019 they contradict their 2018
Health Nazi proclamations and tell you the exact opposite.

Not if the life is a Hog.
I love to kill Hogs.
Because they are good to eat.
And they must die before I can eat them.

There IS a good reason.
I'm hungry.
For Prime Rib and Pork Chops and T-Bone Steaks.

I do not desire to cause animals unnecessary pain and suffering,
but I do desire to eat them --- so does probably 98% of the human
race. Maybe 99% Or 99.5%
We have to kill them before we can eat them.
My view is that PETA and it's message is from
Philosophical Academic Talking Heads
and ought to be disregarded.

Tell me that to your heart's content.
I see it as a Faith based belief.

Therefore Humans are likely to continue eating Hogs.

Faith.

Faith.

Your Evolution does not share your concern for animals.
You ought to consider "going with" your Evolution and
"coming out" against animals --- like your Evolution is
against them and kills then off. See the bolded black up there.

This species eats Hogs too.
And in China this species eats anything alive and sells it on the
streets as Street Food. Including Bats and worms and insects
and other live critters that would "gag a maggot."

On your lights didn't your Evolution evolve some morality?
Don't you want to "line up" with your Evolution's "Plans" for mankind
regarding morality that Evolution created? You should I think.

One man's "better off" is another man's "worse off."
And there is no such thing as , , ,
The International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Better.
So?
So it can be You vs. "Genghis Khan" on what is, or is not, better for humanity.
Who is to say that you are correct? And that "Genghis" is wrong?
Answer: There is no Truth Reality "out there" that can do that.

Easy.
Because I have read enough in Evolution Literature to spot the HUNDREDS
of "ifs" and "buts" and "probably's" and other language that indicated
No Sure And Certain Knowledge of what is being presented --- rather
speculations and guesswork.

That question does not make sense.
I don't have to know anything at all about Evolution to know that
Theistic Evolution is possible.
If Evolution is true, then it is very possible that Theistic Evolution is true.
Evolution is evolution and "the God factor" would have nothing to say about
the natural processes of Evolution.

Do people do that on the Internet? , , lol , ,
Did you never read my OP Who Won The Argument?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/who-won-the-argument.572838/

What if you said you lost.
And Bob said you won.
What if 80% of the people in the room said you won the debate?
What if 98% of Humanity said you won.
Hoe would you settle that?

JAG


``

 

What an ***hole.
Which christian laws though? Like I said, there 30,000 different sects so who decides which bits of which sects get chosen? Utter nonsense.
As for gay rights, the supreme court has already been there.

 

Morality is a pragmatic system designed to let people live together without society exploding. So you can't kill someone 'cos then someone might kill you, which you won't enjoy. Similarly, raping your neighbour's wife is going to cause a lot of trouble.
You need to get a position where everyone agrees on a set of rules so that everyone gets equal treatment; nobody gets abused, and we all get along nicely. That's what the laws of most civilsed countries strive for.
Religion just gets in the way by demonising and persecuting women and minorities, spreading hate and violence. Fortunately it's gradually fading away, al least among the more intelligent people.

 

JAG Writes:
The OP does not want atheism outlawed.

The OP does not want any religion to be favored by the Legal System of any nation.

Mainstream Christendom does not interpret the Bible in such a way as to call for
the execution of fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, nude dancers, etc. -- or for
any kind of legal sanctions against them if they are not law-breakers.

The "Far Right" --- whatever that means --- can be as dangerous to mainstream
Christendom as is the "Far Left" --- whatever that means. The point is that political
and religious extremism is dangerous to everybody on the planet.

Christianity advances in the world NOT through the courts, but through the supernatural
power of the Holy Spirit that makes converts to the Christian Faith. Christianity does not
advance in the world through Legislation, Law, Force, or the Courts.

The Christian Moral Code cannot be codified into law and enforced without having a police
state. Nobody in their right mind would want to see that take place in any nation on Earth

Christianity is NOT a religion that, in the 21st century, desires to use Force to advance it's
cause in the world. There is not a single mainstream Christian denomination, in the 20th
or 21st Centuy, that has called for any kind of religious or political force to be used to
advance Christianity in the world.

It is true that Christianity does in fact Christianize the entire world, but it does this through
peaceful means without any application of religious or political force. The Christianization of
the world will require many millenniums yet ahead.

___________


If you want to be afraid of something, be afraid of The Mob in the streets and be afraid
of the politicians and elected officials who refuse to "stand up to them" and allow them
to break store front windows and loot the stores, and burn down buildings when they
know there are people inside of those buildings {murder} and to shoot and kill police
officers and to block traffic and to burn police cars, and to engage in any kind of
lawbreaking they believe to be "morally justified" and right in front to police officers
too. The Mob is controlled by emotion, and not reason, and if they feel that their
"social justice cause" requires then to kill people they will do that, and if their
"social justice urgency" is intense enough they will Kill Or Burn whatever gets
in their way, the old and helpless, the disabled, the innocent bystanders, mothers,
fathers, children, stores in their own neighborhoods, the businesses of people that
are on their ideological side in their own neighborhoods. And the politicians and
other elected officials whose duty is to stop them from doing all that lawbreaking
are less than heroic and are scared to death of being called a Racist -- so the
lawbreaking continues. All that up there is what people need to be afraid of, and
not mainstream Christendom.
_________

Start quote.
August 11, 2020
"First, the progressives tolerate and even celebrate civil disobedience, because
the cause is just and noble. Then, to hold onto public attention, the protesters
march and block traffic. Next comes the cursing of cops, the throwing of trash,
water bottles and rocks. Then there’s the smashing of store windows, looting
and arson, and Molotov cocktails. Finally, there’s instigating violence with cops
to get footage of police fighting back so the law enforcement officers can be
painted by the progressive press as stormtroopers and the Gestapo.

In Portland, we reached the point where “peaceful protesters” tried to set
a building ablaze with cops barricaded inside.

This, as the mayor said, is attempted murder.
_____


{Who knows what the motive was behind this shooting}

"In Washington, D.C., about midnight Saturday, at a block party in the Southeast
sector of the city, three shooters fired 100 rounds, wounded 20, killed a teenager
and left a female police officer in critical condition"
End quote.
Source:
https://buchanan.org/blog/the-real-world-reasserts-itself-141641

JAG


``

 

"Facinating" and "scary" are emotional words. They reflect fear and awe. You feel that way because evolution made you.

The crime rate in secular developed nations is far lower than religious developing nations. This indicate that morality is actually tied to more emotional and pragmatic reasons. In the Middle Ages Europe was Christian and yet they did horrible things to each other. Apparently, religion isn't enough to impact human nature much.

How does God saying something make it right all by itself without any logical support or good reason? I just don't get how objective right and wrong can magically be created by a being's opinion. Also, there is no good evidence for any religion in the first place.

I'd say that in times of war, punishing criminals, self-defense, killing animals, and abortion are cases where there is a good case for murder. Depends on the situation. But if it is done too much, then society falls apart and we all live miserable lives. If you want to be miserable, then go ahead and murder all the time.

What is logical is what is true and what works in the real world. There is no person who can decide for everyone what is logical or true. We can only decide that for ourselves and live with the consequences of our wrong choices.

Jews and hogs are different species. But being another species doesn't mean you lose all your right to life if right exist right?

So you are willing to violate a creatures rights because you enjoy it? That is very facinating and scary.

Why do you arbitrarily define murder to only apply to humans?

Agreed. There is good reason for objective morality.

Red meat is good for you, but all good things become harmful if done too much. Red meat is very high in fats and calories and will make you obese of over-consumed.

Yet you eat meat in restaurants and stores that sell from producers that force their animals to live in disgusting squalor. Put your money where your mouth is.

I already explained why evolution logically can't stop. Calling it faith doesn't refute me and wouldn't work on a debate stage.

I'm not morally against killing animals myself because I don't believe in morality in the first place. I'm showing that Christians killing animals make them morally inconsistent.

Evolution isn't a person, isn't intelligent, and has no plan. Evolution is just the combination of natural selection and mutations over many generations. Following or obeying evolution is just as silly as obeying the force of gravity by refusing to fly.

We humans have emotions and senses and these are objective things with real responses to things in the real world. For example, if you cut yourself with a knife all the time, you will feel pain. If you eat steak, you will feel great. Different people have somewhat different senses and different things work for different people but humans have a lot of consistency too. If Genghis Khan's lifestyle makes him happy, then I can see why he did what he did.

Specifically what aren't they sure about that is big trouble for their theory?

You just said you read a bunch of evolution literature.

How do you know that? Why would a creator wait around for billions of years when he could just make life in an instant?

Its also possible that unicorns exist. You actually need evidence for theistic evolution.

What is "winning" to you? Is it persuading people? Is it being right? Is it feeling that you are right? If we are settling what is true, then the majority is more likely to be right than the minority. But even that isn't definite. Probably the best way is to get a panel of experts and have them love. But even experts can be biased or wrong. There is no perfect way of figuring this out. Best thing you can do is make up your own mind.

 

I don't see a justification for the idea that we need some sort of "higher power" to define morality for us.

Besides, under fully religious leadership that was fully intent on following a "higher power", western government committed severe atrocities coming directly from that belief in their "higher power".

And, countering that was SERIOUSLY difficutlt - so difficult that people had to leave Europe to make America. One of the real problems with "higher power" orientation is that it is immutable. One can not debate with God. Thus when one religion is the majority that decides the other religions are illegal, or decides that racial minorities aren't fully human, or confirms that women are second class citizens, or makes its perfectly OK to exclude same sex oriented individuals from economic opportunity in America, etc., correction requires opposing the God that is believed to have made those decisions for us.

Turning the issue into one of rationality vs. God is a serious problem.

Thanks to our founders, America rejects that direction.

 

Thanks for the response, and for quoting parts of my post before the usual sicko deviants whined to a mod and got it deleted for no reason. lol Now I remember why so many posters here left or got perma-banned. Their pets can't discuss issues without controlling the narratives.

 

Disagree.
Fascinating means "very interesting" and does not mean awe.
Scary can refer to the idea of being scary -- and not to me
personally being scared.
And I'm not.

So YOU say.
Faith.

You can't prove with Empiricism that the "religious" and
"secular" factors had ANYTHING to do with the crime
rates.

Like The Mob is doing in the streets of America today --- doing
horrible things. The Secular World of atheism has murdered
tens of million , , , Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin {now don't tell me that
Joseph was a Christian.}

Disagree.
Christendom has 2.3 billion and has made a HUGE contribution
to humanity. So has Theism. Theism is projected to hit 5.7 billion by
2050. That is a lot of Theists that's gonna be in the world.

There is "logical support" and "good reason" for the truth
of Christianity --- we will disagree on what is, and is not
"logical" and on what is, or is not, a "good reason."

There is no such thing on the planet as , ,
The International Authority On What Is, Or Is Not, Good Evidence.
So?
So what YOU call no good evidence, I call good evidence.

In my world that is irrational.
In my world killing animals is not murder.
We live in different worlds.
We see the world in terms of opposites.

, , lol , ,
That's a , , er , , I don't what that is
I don't think I'll touch that one.

Humans don't agree on either of those.
One man's logic is another man's illogic.
One man's true is another man's false.

A lot of very evil stuff works in the real world.
A lot of very good stuff too.
I'm not a big fan of Pragmatism.
My goal is to live to please the Lord.
Faith.

Agreed.

Noted.

In my world animals do not have rights.
Only humans gave rights.
For me that is a closed subject.
Why? Because I eat animals.
And I will not quit eating them.

If you mean will I continue to eat rib eye steaks, then yes.
"Course, I don't believe animals have the right to life.

Well, we DO live in different worlds.

Because that is what I desire to do.
I am not sure what you mean by "arbitrarily" -- I have a good reason
for my decision --- I love to eat animals and to use products made
from animals --- which by the way are in the hundreds --- including
medicines.
To be consistent with your position on animals you will have to refuse to
use ANY products and medicines made from animals. Are you willing to
do this?

Okay.

Okay.
So will whole milk.
So will butter.
So will dozens of humanity's favorite foods.
Humanity will probably improve as the millenniums unfold.

I prefer that animals not live in disgusting squalor, but
that flaw in humanity will not stop me from eating
~ Prime Rib
~ Rib eyes
~ pork chops
~ and from using medicines made from animals
~ Or from using products made from animals eg wallets and belts

I do that.
My position on animals is up-post and up-thread.

You did.
i just don't believe it.
I don't believe you know that.

I don't want to refute you.
t really do not.
This is the Internet.
What happens here on the Internet is this:
Bob makes his points.
Tom makes his points.
This is repeated until one or more tires of the repetition and
stops making his points.
Then move on to a new thread and repeat , , ,

I would not get on one.
Writing and making points is my bag.

I disagree.
You have convinced me that you have strong moral feelings
against killing animals -- very strong , , , very very strong.
I also believe that you believe in morality.
I believe that you misunderstand yourself.

Disagree.
Jesus ate fish.
There is no reason to believe that He did not also eat meat.
He said the "Son Of Man came eating and drinking"
God said that humans could eat animals {in Genesis.}
There is no principle in the Bible against eating animals.

You don't 2 + 2 = 4-KNOW that Theistic Evolution is not the method
that was used.

That strikes my ear just like John 3:16 strikes your ear.

Noted.

That would not matter.
All that matters is I remember endless "ifs" and "buts" and "probably's"
and other language that indicated No Sure And Certain Knowledge of
what is being presented --- rather speculations and guesswork.
So? So i don't believe that it can be known with 2+2=4-certainty.

I will classify it as a faith position.
I don't know it with 2+2=4-certainty.
Neither do you know that Theistic Evolution is not possible.
Or that it did not happen that way.

I don't know.
I would have to be Omniscient {all knowing} in order to know the
answer to that question.

Do you you think there will ever come a time on the Internet when
people stop using the "unicorn" thingy? I sure hope so.
That and the Easter Bunny thingy.
And Zeus.
, , , lol , ,

Not any more than I need evidence for John 3:16
Christianity is a Faith.
Beside there could be some evidence for Theistic Evolution.
I would have to research it --- but I really don't care enough to
do the pecking.
I know, by Faith, that God created the Universe, and that is all I
need to know.

I guess winning to me is to just keeping on posting points.
You never know who you help?
Some hate you.
Some maybe like you a little bit.
Some may read some of your points, and be helped?
I think I am right, but I am human so I could be wrong
on a lot of stuff.
I will not go wrong if I stay with the moral code of the
New Testament's Golden Rule.

Ahh, that's "Majority Vote to arrive at truth.
Of course you did say "more likely" -- I don't know?
You nean worldwide?
Or in nations, say Germany 1039-1945 . . lol . .

Best.

JAG

 

You're welcome.

JAG

 

Correction Of Typo
@Distraff
Distraff Said:
"If we are settling what is true, then the majority is more likely
to be right than the minority".
. .
JAG Replied:
Ahh, that's "Majority Vote to arrive at truth.
Of course you did say "more likely" -- I don't know?
You nean worldwide?
"Or in nations, say Germany 1039 - 1945 . . lol .___JAG

I Meant To Type This:
You mean worldwide?
"Or in nations, say Germany 1939 - 1945 . . lol .___JAG

JAG

 

@Swensson

Question # 1 , , ,
And if there is no Truth Reality above The People --- then
what Higher Power is there that can say Collective Humanity
is immoral to do the following?
~ Outlaw Christianity
~ Outlaw Abortions
~ Outlaw Free Speech
~ Outlaw Liberalism
~ Permit Dueling {humans killing each other with pistols to settle personal issues}
~ Legalize Gladiatorial Games {fighting to the death}

Will you answer that question?

If there is no Higher Power above The People, then The People
can collectively make any Law they decide to make -- no matter
how absurd it is -- and it would not be immoral. Suppose your
Evolution takes a sudden turn, and The People start evolving
into the kind of species that craves blood-sports and so
The People of Earth collectively pass legislation that
establishes Gladiatorial Games in every nation -- where
humans fight to the death with swords, knives, and other
sharp metal weapons.

Question # 2 , ,
WillReadMore, would Gladiatorial Games be immoral?

Will you answer those 2 questions?

JAG