Do The People Have The Moral Authority To Outlaw Atheism?

The key word is "more likely." There are a lot of exceptions to this obviously. If the majority wasn't any more likely to be right than the minority, then obviously that means that the general public is completely ignorant and has basically no knowledge. The more correct knowledge a population has on a topic, the more likely the majority is to be right and the larger majority there will be. I don't believe the majority is always right, but I also don't believe it is completely ignorant either. So that is why I believe that the majority is just more likely to be right.

We also discussed evolution and you claimed that evolution could stop. Do you have any real-life scenarios where this is possible?

 

Additional Thoughts , , , ,{on this philosophical Thought Experiment}

■ "In God We Trust" is on America's money.
■ Our Human Rights come from God and are inalienable rights.
■ America's founding documents say our Human Rights come from
God and NOT from other human beings.
See The Declaration Of Independence quote below:

From the Declaration Of Independence:

"“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
https://legaldictionary.net/inaliena...ghts.%E2%80%9D


Also read this jewel , , ,

"Personal rights held by an individual which are not bestowed by law,
custom, or belief, and which cannot be taken or given away, or transferred
to another person, are referred to as “inalienable rights.” The U.S. Constitution
recognized that certain universal rights cannot be taken away by legislation,
as they are beyond the control of a government, being naturally given to every
individual at birth, and that these rights are retained throughout life."
https://legaldictionary.net/inaliena...ghts.%E2%80%9D

■ However, if Humanity, and not God, is The Highest Authority, then Collective
Humanity has the Power and the Authority to pass legislations that renders
null and void the US Constitution and the Bill Of Rights and the Declaration of
Independence.

■ The philosophical point of the Opening Post is that when you eliminate God
as The Highest Authority -- then Collective Humanity becomes The Highest Authority
and has The Power and The Authority to legislate absurdity into the law of the land.

They can even outlaw chewing gum, or outlaw wearing clothes that have any blue
in them, or outlaw the Bill Of Rights and outlaw the US Constitution and can render
them both null and void. Who has The Power or The Authority to prevent
Collective Humanity from doing exactly that?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

_________

If you say it is a what, then:
What exactly is it?
Where is it located?
Who has The Power or The Authority to interpret what the What says?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

JAG

``

 

Doesn't matter whether rights come from God or from the Collective - the collective will still make law that over-rides rights.

So the question is whether or not enshrining God - "higher power - aka "The Creator" in the Constitution - offers more protection from the collective then not doing so.

This is one of the question the founders had to wrestle with.

I would say that so long as the Legal and Political system is Secular - ascribing "essential liberty" (not to be confused with all liberty) to a power which is "Above the Legitimate authority of Gov't" is an excellent idea - and has served us quite well.

Putting essential liberty "Above" - and thus outside of - the legitimate authority of Gov't was one of the main safeguards put in place by the founders to protect essential liberty - and thus limit the power of Gov't.

Unfortunately - as Gov't is want to do - for 200 years it has been trying to get power back - and has succeeded.

 

You continue to push for dictatorship over democracy. Why can't you see that?

And why don't you recognize that dictators* can be just as absurd. Would you prefer to live in North Korea or America?

* - Or in this case people claiming to speak for dictators, as priests do, since God isn't real.

 

True, but they could have been (ideas like the Holocaust has the additional feature that it could become a 100% agreed upon thing by simply executing everyone who disagrees). Point still stands though, it is not the percentage of people who believes something that makes it moral.

Of course. I use it as a caricature of evil, and indeed, I use it as such because I am fairly confident that we agree that they are evil (so we don't have to solve two issues at once).

Why would it need to be rendered null and void? A "moral proclamation" from 100% of the people does not have the authority to make something moral, so why would we need to overturn it?

 

It seems to me there are plenty of questions in the OP that can be discussed just fine:

Are The People the Final ,Authority? - No
If The People are not The Final Authority, then Who or What is The Final Authority? - Our humanity
etc.

I wouldn't say they're completely undiscussable, but yes, they're not very interesting questions. That being said, there are plenty of assumptions and assertions in the argument that don't escape scrutiny just because someone tacked some unanswerable questions at the end. The idea that atheists think "The People" are an utmost authority is by and large wrong, and that deserves to be challenged, and that doesn't change by the addition of questions like "what are their names?".

Why would I create threads about it? I don't have any particular angle of it to discuss. As for making the information available, we have a stricter method for that, publishing (I suggest this). There are also plenty of more accessible vectors, like youtube videos, articles, lectures etc..

"Authority" is a weird way to put it, but if anything, it is within our human experience. Not our ability to conjure up a percentage of the current population to make declarations. Nobody has authority to interpret it, which is why there are disagreements on what is moral.

What do you mean "so that leaves people"? There are plenty of ideas (like utilitarianism, rawlsianism, natural rights, the categorical imperative, etc.) still in the game. It seems to me a narrow view to assert that morality becomes morality only by the say-so of some authority (with a name or physical location).

 

Right, but you seem to forget that value in comparison to something which you agree has no value. It seems to me, we're perfectly capable of celebrating people here and now, and you can despair about the far future if you want to. We mourn people when they're dead, and perhaps when they find out they're going to die, it seems to me your sadness beyond that is unwarranted.

It seems to me that if it is true that people die and there is no afterlife, then accepting something that isn't the truth just because you don't like it is insanity. People seem to be able to be satisfied with different things, all across the spectrum of human experience, so your assertion of what it would be sane to be satisfied with seems unwarranted.

 

Why would they be in the wrong thread? You OP goes:

On Atheism there is no God.
The People are the Highest Authority. (source)​

This reads to me as if you're making an assertion of how authority works on atheism. It does not read as you referring to some subset of atheists (and if you do, I'd very much like you to produce a link to even one atheist who claims this).

Who says it's incorrect? Since when are you the authority on how atheists construct their morality? You don't even seem to have the basics down. Again, your attacks against irreligious ideas seem to lean heavily on the fact that you haven't actually understood how they work.

 

Authoritarian followers need to outsource morality and treat it as orders from a powerful authority, rather than based on principles derived cooperatively or from the self.

 

Goofy thread.

 

You are using incorrect constructs in your hypothesis.
Any collective proclamation that outlaws something is a legal premise.
Now that legal premise can be based in morals, hence the development of a god or godless theocracy.

You have a obligation to uphold your morals and those moral had better do not harm or community morals will be imposed.

Again legal.
If you object on a moral basis which can certainly be legitmate then the legal body infringes on your religion.

Again that is legal, infringing upon morals.

Legally they can define anything they want to define with whatever metaphor or euphemism they choose and call it law.
It none the less is an infringement on morals in many cases.

You have the authoity to define your moral base with the single exception of 'do no harm, cause no injury or damage' that is the line where legal and moral seperate, or inappropriately join.

Highly organized little people with big guns.

you with previous exceptions given.

Sure it does.

atheism is bankrupt, as proven in thread after thread on the subject, nothing to denigrate.

Sure an authority is any highly learned scholar that people look to.

Not really morals, regardless of intelligence levels of the holder usually have volumes of philosophy or the teachings of the God backing them up.

 

No.
You are incorrect.
I stand with my OP and with my follow-up posts in this
thread.
Also I am perfectly content to allow my OP and
all my follow-up posts in this thread to stand in
contrast to your post -- without any further
comment on your post.

I just checked the definitions of bankrupt , , ,
Bankrupt is an odd word-concept to apply to atheism.
But of course you can use "bankrupt" however you desire.
I guess you meant {2}
bankrupt -
{1} of a person or organization) declared in law unable to pay outstanding debts.
{2} completely lacking in a particular quality or value
_________

Atheism certainly does present a message of Gloom, Doom, and
Destruction for the Human Person after Death because on atheism
the Human Person has the identical same ultimate destiny-end as
does a Yard Weed, a House Plant, and a Mosquito --- namely ceasing
to exist as in Oblivion. So I guess definition {2} up there might, in some
sense, describe atheism.

JAG

 

No.
Just the opposite of goofy.
There is nothing goofy about this OP's philosophical Thought Experiment.

JAG Wrote In The OP:
"Some Miscellaneous Thoughts Relating To The OP's issues.
On Atheism there is no God.
The People are the Highest Authority.
The People are The Highest Supreme Being.
The People can speak through the political vehicle of Democracy?
Suppose The People want to Democratically outlaw your beliefs?
To what Authority would you appeal that would be higher than The People?
You could not appeal to God.
On Atheism there is no God.
It would be You vs. The People --and in a Democracy The People make the laws
and are The Supreme Being.
Do 98% The People of Earth have a Moral Right to outlaw the public expression
of your beliefs?
Do 98% of The People of the Earth have a Moral Right to outlaw Secularism Humanism?
Do 98% of The People of the Earth have a Moral Right to outlaw Christianity?
Is there a Truth Reality out there that has the Moral Authority to prevent
98% of The People collectively outlawing the public expression of
Atheism, or Secular Humanism or Christianity?"___JAG

JAG

 

JAG Wrote:
Remember now that this OP is a Thought Experiment.
If Collective Humanity decided to pass legislation that
legalized , ,
~ Dueling {with pistols to the death to settle personal disputes.}
~ Gladiatorial Games {fighting to the death} , , ,

, , , what Moral Authority is there that has The Power and
The Authority to render null and void the will of Collective
Humanity regarding the legalization of Dueling and
Gladiatorial Games and to declare Collective Humanity
to be immoral to legalize Dueling and Gladiatorial Games?
What are their names?
Where are they located?"___JAG
`
Swensson Replied , , ,

This is getting into the area of the irrational and the absurd.
Obviously Dueling and Gladiatorial Games are immoral and
would need to be both legally and morally rendered null and
void.

Identify The Moral Authority or The Moral Reality that is above
The People that can "make something moral."
What are their names?
Where are they located?
Are you one of them?
__________

If it is a "What" -- then what is it?
More importantly if it is a "What" then who has the
Authority to interpret what the "What" said?
What are their names?
Where are they located?
Are you one of them?


JAG

 

Not "far future."
You keep repeating "far future."
Your date with your "far future" is NOT far off.

You do not desire to "face the truth" about what your
Religion Of Secular Humanism actually teaches about the
certain coming Gloom and Doom and Destruction of the
Human Person, in NOT the "far future" but rather the
certain-coming near future.
Here tis again , , ,
On your Secular Humanism , , ,
And on atheism , , , ,
If you and your atheist and Secular Humanist Friends
live to be 90 years old and are now age , ,

■ 40 you have 600 months left to live before you cease to exist.
■ 50 you have 480 months left to live before you cease to exist.
■ 60 you have 360 months left to live before you cease to exist.
■ 70 you have 240 months left to live before you cease to exist.
■ 80 you have 120 months left to live before you cease to exist.

Swensson, if you are say age 50, and live to 90, then
you have a mere 480 months left to live before you cease to exist.

So?

So how can you keep on saying "far future"?

And how can you keep pretending that this is not justified sadness?

Just think, on your Secular Humanism, if you are age 50, and die at
90, then you have a mere 480 months before you will never again
enjoy , , ,
~ music
~ thinking
~ problem solving
~ happiness
~ love
~ joy
~ food
~ travel
~ coffee and other beverages
~ eating in restaurants
~ driving a car
~ family
~ friends
~ reading
~ writing
~ debating
~ posting

And in spite of the truth of all the above , ,

You sit there at your computer and tell me that there is nothing
actually sad about all that up there and that even though it can
be a mere 480 months {or less} before you cease to exist -- that
it is "far off."

What is "far off" about a mere 480 months? {or less}

What is not Sad , , very Sad , , about all the above coming true
with regard to your life?

JAG

PS
Your Religion Of Secular Humanism is one of the saddest entities
on the Planet.

Its just pure sadness all round.


``

 

Keeping in mind that this is a philosophical Thought
Experiment , , ,

It was some of The People that created the ideas of , , ,
{1} utilitarianism
{2} Rawlsianism
{3} natural rights,
{4} the categorical imperative,
{5} etc.
, , , and Collective Humanity has The Power and The Authority
to outlaw {1} through {5} and remove them from "the game"
completely.

Collective Humanity has The Power and The Authority to issue
a proclamation that renders null and void {1} through {5}.

By the way, Collective Humanity has The Power and The Authority
to outlaw anyone attempting to make a distinction between
Legal and Moral , , ,
, , , and to outlaw the actual distinction between Legal and Moral.

There is no such thing as a Truth Reality or a Moral Authority
that is above Collective Humanity and that can override the
Moral Will and the Legal Will of Collective Humanity.
If you say that there is a Truth Reality or Moral Authority
that can do that, then , , ,
What are their names?
Where are they located?
Are you one of them?

_______

If it is a "What" -- then what is it?
More importantly if it is a "What" then who has the
Authority to interpret what the "What" said?
What are their names?
Where are they located?
Are you one of them?


JAG


``

 

Yes, each of us will cease to exist. That is reality. That you find it sad is irrelevant, and your belief that we wont expire and will exist forever is self delusion evidently based on fear.

 

False equivalency.

 

Please elaborate on that opinion.

 

The majority has the power (presuming democracy and not dictatorship, as JAG advocates for) to change the rules and laws that govern society. That does not mean the majority has the power to equate those rules to morality. Law and morals are not the same, and quite often the rules put into place by the majority are not moral.

Of course, that's no justification for dictatorship, which is what JAG prefers.

 

Wiggle and squirm.

To attempt to make a meaningful distinction between
"The People" and "our humanity" is wiggle and
squirm in a desperate effort to wiggle and squirm out
of the obvious truth that Collective Humanity aka
The People is the Highest Authority and has The
Power and The Authority to legalize eg. Dueling where
people gun-fight to the death to settle personal disputes
and to legalize Gladiatorial Games where people fight
to the death in front of blood-thirsty crowds for their
blood-lust entertainment , , ,

, , , moreover Collective Humanity has The Power and
The Authority, not only to legalize those two entities --- but
also to outlaw any moral criticism of that legalization and
also to establish as legally binding a Resolution that
establishes both Dueling nd Gladiatorial Games to be moral.

Collective Humanity has The Power and The Authority to
criminalize you saying in public or out loud to any other
human being that Dueling and Gladiatorial Games are
immoral. _ {Sure I personally think that'd be wrong -- but
this philosophical Thought Experiment is not about what
I personally think is right or wrong.}

{By the way, has not modern day Germany criminalized
public speech Holocaust denial?}

There is no Higher Power or Truth Reality that is above
Collective Humanity that can render null and void
the will of Collective Humanity. If you say there is, then , ,
What are their names?
Where are they located?
Are you one of them?

_____

If you say it is a "What" and not a "Who" , , then
who has The Power and The Authority to interpret
what the "What" said?
What are their names/
Where are they located?
Are you one of them?

"Our humanity"___Swensson

"etc"___Swensson

You say "Our humanity" is the Final Authority and not
Collective Humanity aka The People.

"Our humanity" has to have a message and a message has to have
an interpretation and an interpretation has to have an interpreter,
and an interpreter is a dude or dudes with names and addresses.

Otherwise "our humanity" is nothing more than an abstract concept
that delivers no message.
An abstract concept itself can not deliver a message.
The only entity that can deliver a message is Collective Humanity
or Some Portion of Collective Humanity

So?

So "our humanity" must have an interpreted message , , , ,

So who has The Power and The Authority to interpret the message
of "our humanity"?
What are their names?
Where are they located?
Are you one of them?


JAG


``

 

whats the difference?

 

Laws can be immoral.

Law is are the rules that the state enforces. Morality is what is good and bad.

 

Faith is a personal thing. It should stay a personal thing.

 

Four points;
{1} I assume your "Faith is a personal thing. It should stay a personal
thing" is you saying people of faith ought not to share their faith with
others.

{2} If what you say is true, then why have a Religion and Philosophy
Department here at PF ? Or anywhere else on the Internet? What would
you do, ban the discussion of Religion on the Internet?

{3} Are you aware that Christianity commands Christians to share their
faith with unbelievers?

"Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on
earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have
commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very
end of the age.”___The Lord Jesus { Matthew 28:18-20 }

{4} My view: 98% of Christians on the Internet At large do not try
to push and shove their faith on anyone, but rather merely present
their faith to others for their consideration. For example, in response
to you approaching me first with your comment up there, I shared
Christ's Great Commission with you.

The Great Commission that He gave to His Christian Church
to "go and make disciples of all the nations" , , ,"teaching them to
obey everything that I have commanded you."

_____________

Bible Verse For Today.
"For you know the grace of our LORD Jesus Christ, that though
he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you
through his poverty might become rich."__2 Corinthians 8:9

Best.

JAG

``