Do The People Have The Moral Authority To Outlaw Atheism?

Depends on what you compare with. Compared with the amount of time people (atheists and theists) spend mourning someone's death, it's pretty far.

You ascribe all this sadness, and yet, we're not sad about it, only you have said you're sad about it. It seems to me, what is sad and what isn't is a matter of perspective, and if you choose a perspective that makes reality sad, feel free to sit and be sad.

 

I think you've misinterpreted what I've said. What I mean is that it can be immoral without it being a person's say-so. I think it is immoral, but I don't think it requires someone (or arguably, some thing) to "render" it thus.

 

Sure there is a meaningful distinction between "humanity" and "The People". The people can be tricked, bribed, outmanoeuvred, biased, etc.. The humanity referred to in secular humanism does not include things that we have been tricked or bribed etc. to include.

With the above in mind, "The People" (or sometimes a dictator or some oligarchs or whatnot) have the authority to make things legal, but it has no bearing on the morality of what they say. If The People outlawed gladiator games or criticisms, they would be illegal, but not necessarily immoral.

Yes, so? They didn't make it immoral. Either it was immoral, and they changed the law to reflect it being immoral, or it isn't immoral or (in my opinion most likely) the law is there for a combination or practical and moral reasons.

Why does there need to be an interpretation? I mean, there certainly are interpretations, and perhaps humans necessarily come up with interpretations but the existence of a moral authority does not require an authoritative interpretation of the moral authority.

I have suggested a source of moral authority and value, I have not claimed that there is anyone who has verifiable perfect access to it.

Of course, there are some aspects that we have access to. Democracy is one way to try to cancel out our biases, by deciding together with people who have different biases. It is not perfect, it doesn't in itself have moral authority, it just aligns itself with the moral authority under certain circumstances (in your scenario where "The People" legalises gladiators, democracy has simply, for whatever reason, stepped away from that alignment).

Similarly, many (most people?) believe themselves to have better access than others, but that of course doesn't make it so.

 

Some of "The People" came up with the ideas, but they do not propose themselves as the arbiters of morality. The idea that the people has that moral authority is a strawman you made up to avoid meeting the actual arguments.

I mean, I've answered this plenty, you've just assumed a different answer than the one I gave.

 

There is a difference between a lawful obligation and a moral obligation.

 

Morals can be immoral as well.
'Murder is bad during peace, exception war, killem all let God sort em out'

States enforce morality, thou shalt not murder thy brother lest you get the electric chair.

While I agree there are distinctions I dont see it in your example

 

That is not a very good response to what I wrote and what you
quoted that I said.

JAG Previously Said And You Quoted:
"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}"___JAG

And Swensson"s Replied:

You could have given me a more accurate response.
A mere 480 months is NOT "far off" by any reasonable comparison
of the time-events in a person's life.
A response like that demonstrates the truth of my claim that you and
I will never agree on the color of an orange.
Your disagreement is automatic.
My view is that you have made up your mind that you will disagree
with what i write BEFORE you read what I write.
It would have been much better for you to have posted back and said
Yes, 480 months is NOT really "far off" and yes it is true that "time flies"
which will make the 480 months "seem to go by even faster" and so
on my Secular Humanism, it is true that if I am age 50 and I live to be
90, then I have a very short time to live before I will cease to exist
forever and become 000000. {This is the Truth, isn't it? Yes it is}

But you do not want to admit the truth about your Secular Humanism
that I have carefully and truthfully presented up there in this post?

So you compared the 480 months to "the amount of time people {atheists
and theists} spend mourning someone's death, its pretty far" --- to make it
seem that 480 months is really a long way off -- when its actually not "far off."

You could have compared it to the amount to time atheists and theists spend
at a funeral --- which is probably about 90 minutes -- or the amount of time
atheists and theists spend "taking a shower" which is maybe 10 -15 minutes.
That would have made the 480 months seem even more "far off."

"we're"___Swensson
I do not believe you can speak for Secular Humanists.
I do not believe you can know what sadness is in the
hearts and minds of the world's Secular Humanists.
__________

I do not believe that you personally do not feel sadness at the thoughts of
ceasing to exist.

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

I am not going to believe that the thoughts of that up there, does not
make you sad.

You'd have to be Omniscient to know that.
You cannot even know that sadness has not been expressed in
threads by Secular Humanists regarding their soon coming date
with ceasing-to-exist -- here at PF. There is just to many threads
here for anyone to know that.
By the way, did you know that there are atheists on Christian Discussion
boards that are there to ask questions looking for a way out of their
atheism? And who are not happy with their atheism and who take a
totally different tone than the atheists that post on the Internet At large.
Fact.

My view is the only way a human being can NOT feel sad about ceasing to
exist and never again enjoying , , ,
~ 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
, , , , is NOT to ever allow himself to 'think about it" seriously --- which is
sorta anti-intellectual, isn't it? Does not the human intellect cry out for a
through investigation of all things knowable? How can it not be interesting
to KNOW that on your Secular Humanism -- that YOU as a Human Person
can cease-to-exist in a mere 480 months?

In the first place you do not KNOW that ceasing to exist is, in fact,
a "reality."
You do not KNOW that you don't have a "never-dying-soul" that
will not live somewhere for all Eternity.
If you say you do know -- then that is a Faith belief.
The very best you can say, as a True Seeker of Truth, is that "I do not
know if I have a never dying soul, or not."
________

I do feel free to "sit and be sad."
And I will do that.
I will continue to be Sad at the thoughts of Swensson ceasing to exist.
And why would I not be sad at the thoughts of that?
Are you not a valuable person?
That makes a valuable contribution to humanity?
Why is it not sad to think that will come to a permanent end?
And Swensson will cease to exist forever.
Name one thing happy about that?
Just one thing.
1. __________
Name it.


Best.

JAG

Thought 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


```

 

All that is mere bald assertion.

There is no such thing as the "humanity" referred to in
Secular Humanism. It is not a concrete reality. It is a
pure abstract concept and any pure abstract concept
demands a message {it has to say something} and any
message demands an interpretation and any interpretation
demands an interpreter and all interpreters have names and
addresses and so we are right back to Collective Humanity
having The Power and The Authority to outlaw what you just
said and to criminalize the public expression of what you just
said ---and there is no Higher Authority or Truth Reality or
Moral Reality that is above Collective Humanity on any subject
from A to Z.

Collective Humanity has The Power and The Authority to criminalize
and outlaw the public expression that asserts a distinction between
what is Legal and what is Moral.

There is no Moral Reality out there that is above Collective Humanity.
It does not exist. And to say that there is one, is pure bald assertion.

Collective Humanity has The Power and the Authority to establish
a Dictatorship or a Democratic Republic or a Monarchy --- and there
is no Moral Reality out there that is above Collective Humanity that
has The Power or The Authority to render null and void the Collective
Will of Collective Humanity.
If you say they do not, then Who or What has The Power or the Authority
to render null and void the Collective Will of Collective Humanity?
What are their names?
Where are they located?
Are you one of them?

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

Meanwhile , , , ,

I am holding to what I said Previously:

JAG Wrote:
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.}

Best.

JAG


``

 

Kamala Harris thinks that black people have "NEVER been treated as fully human." So they're STILL not treated as fully human even today! https://disrn.com/news/kamala-harri...america-has-never-been-treated-as-fully-human

 

"God telling" people to do things can result in everything from charity to terrorism.

 

Do you have a point in there somewhere?

Are you actually thinking that we have equal justice under the law today - the topic Harris addressed???

 

IF... my theory has some validity that many of the Jewish Bible and Christian Bible writers had something like a near death experience........ or some sort of open vision from the G-d of Abraham / HaShem ..... THEN.... a pretty powerful case can be presented that these people get visions and glimpses from non-linear time....... of a future.... .or even of multiple possible futures........

Matthew chapter four for example sounds a lot like the near death experience of Rabbi Alon Anava and the conclusions of Rabbi Alon Anava on the really huge questions of life remind me of Matthew chapters five, six and seven.... the Sermon on the Mount. (For the record Rabbi Alon Anava is Orthodox Jewish and does not accept Messiah Yeshua - Jesus as Messiah the Passover Lamb).

If this idea has validity then.... the Holy Spirit that meets with many near death experiencers... and with the writers and speakers of scriptures....... has the ability to make Atheism astonishingly rare in the future world of the year 2185 that was shown to near death experiencer Howard Storm.


https://www.near-death.com/religion/christianity/howard-storm.html#a04

....

I think that near death experiencer Howard Storm and Jeremiah were talking about the same thing.

Jeremiah 31:34

"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

 

Dennis, thank you for taking the time to write that up and for making a contribution to the thread.
Much appreciated.
God Bless.

JAG


``

 

Depends what you mean by "equal justice."

 

It is an abstract representation of a concrete reality. Humans exist, and so our humanity exists. There are traits which are common to humans, such as not wanting to be murdered. The hypothetical humans are an abstract representation of it (for instance, meaningless torture is bad because of the suffering that existing humans would feel if they were tortured). The hypothetical humans are only used as a thought experiment to show that there can be an answer to what is moral that is not subject to the whims, trickery, misleading, etc. of a democratic vote among currently existing humans.

I don't think a message demands an interpretation. I think the message can exist even if nobody were to try to interpret it. That being said, we humans are definitely going to try to interpret it, chances are the vast majority of people are going to try to interpret it at some point. However, this does not introduce an "authority" of those interpretations.

Well, the people certainly do (of course, what I mean by "our collective humanity" is not just the existing collection of humans, but the human traits that we collectively have), but it doesn't matter, their authority is merely legal, not moral.

I mean, you can keep saying that "The People" and their moral proclamations are the highest moral authority, but in that case, you are no longer discussing secular humanism, or any of the material world view I have touched upon. I have told you about the difference, and the fact that you will spout the false version not only instead of trying to understand the distinction, but in the face of having the distinction presented to you seems to indicate that your best "defence" against secular humanism is to not engage with it, but to use strawmen and other fallacies.

And I maintain that no such authority exists. There are many things within "truth-reality" that we don't have access to, like Russel's teapot. The fact there is nobody with a verifiable and reliable way of checking is not an indication that the "truth-reality" isn't there. Your appeal to an authority is simply not necessary.

Can you substantiate this? You say it is a "squirm", but that doesn't seem to me to actually address the argument.

Consider an example, like being punched in the face for no reason. Being punched in the face for no reason is something we humans do not want, it derives from our human nature. That is what makes it immoral. Of course, the people could legalise it if it wanted to, but that doesn't change the previous statement, that just changes the legality, which is something different. This is an example of the distinction between the two, which you seem to think does not exist.

This is all true, because all you've said here is about legality, not morality.

 

I see you do a lot of questioning, rather than actually presenting a consistent argument. If you show exactly what it is that makes you sad about it, I'd be able to pin down exactly where the disagreement lies.

No fact or notion is happy or sad by itself, it is only happy or sad in the mind of a person. Whether something is happy or sad is largely due to the person's outlook. Judging from most people's mourning, the death of a person is worth maybe a few weeks of mourning tops. If there is no afterlife, then you have chosen a view in which you're sad and then you die, and I have chosen one in which I'm happy and then I die (with an appropriate amount of sadness at the end, I suppose).

It seems to me that a week or so of mourning tops is as much as one's death warrants, compared to that, 480 or however many months is pretty long.

I haven't made up my mind to disagree, but I have made up my mind that I have to be very picky with what statements I accept and why. Normally, I'm quite permissive with stuff like that, but like with your extrapolation from "our collective humanity" to "The People", you have shown that you are willing to take advantage of ambiguous wordings and statements, even when it avoids the actual issues at hand, so I have had little choice but to be picky.

What is far and what is not far is always a matter of perspective, and in this case, you would have to already have accepted your conclusion in order for your perspective to make sense.

I thought I had already agreed with it on several occasions. I don't have a problem with the idea itself, I am more than willing to discuss the ramifications, and how atheistic philosophy has dealt with it throughout the ages. However, you haven't really discussed any of that, the main point of your posts seems to be to create the fallacy of guilt by association, rather than actually discussing the issue.

Well, I'm comparing your sadness to the amount of sadness I think is warranted, not how much time we spend in the shower. I'm not going to say no sadness (because we do mourn our dead), but it's certainly not this premature sadness that you suggest. All in all, whatever sadness you want to ascribe to it, it doesn't seem to be a problem for atheism.

Perhaps not all, but this is certainly not the first time this idea has been floated, and as a movement, atheistic or materialistic ideas have been able to deal with it reasonably well between humanism, existentialism/absurdism, comparison to religion etc.. I can't prove that there isn't some lonely atheist in a state of constant fear of their own mortality somewhere, but it hasn't really been a problem for secular humanism as a whole.

In particular, I would argue that the only problem here is the setting of expectations. If you thought that you won the lottery, and spent a bunch of time thinking about your new money and making plans for it etc., and then it turned out it was fake, you would be sad. That's not to say everyone who doesn't win the lottery is sad all the time, it is just sad if you have built up your expectations unrealistically. In that sense, the source of your sadness is not the materialistic death of the soul, it is Christianity having built up an unrealistic expectation for you. Your faith has been writing cheques that reality can't cash.

I think I feel an appropriate amount of sadness. At the moment, it is far from enough to affect my normal life. It is not any more sadness than I feel about not winning the lottery (I didn't even buy a ticket). Do you feel sad about not winning the lottery?

Either way, does sadness make something less believable? Thinking you'll get money from a Nigerian prince is happier than thinking you won't, but that doesn't make is believable, does it?

You can believe what you want.

I'm well aware of this, it is a recurring issue, and philosophers have discussed issues like these for centuries.

As with your decision of sadness, I think the issue is that those people haven't actually rejected religion outright, they've just rejected one part of it. They've rejected "there is a God", but they haven't got around to rejecting ideas like "morality/meaning can only come from God", even though they're actually no harder to reject.

Ok, well, you can keep your view, just don't pretend it is inherent to secular humanism.

The idea that there is no life after death is interesting, and I believe we mentioned this and thought about it right away in whichever thread it was, so I don't think anyone is suggesting "don't think about it". I'm merely suggesting not bogging oneself down with it to the point where it keeps us from considering other truths. We still have 480 months or whatever to enjoy these things, and by focusing on a potential future intangible, you have really omitted the truth that we are definitely able to engage in all of those things right here and now.

I don't think I claimed that either. I merely said that "if you choose a perspective that makes reality sad, feel free to sit and be sad".

It's not that it in itself is happy, it's the fact that you're failing to mention all of the good things.

 

Really? I don't see any possible definition of "equal justice" that could be devised in order to substantiate a claim that we have that.

 

Are you suggesting that every single black person has been treated the same by the justice system? Are you suggesting that every single white person has been treated the same justice system? Are you suggesting that no black person in history has been treated better by the justice system than a white person?

 

Very obviously, none of those are valid measures of equality.

 

People need to get over the obsession with identity politics. We are all individuals. We should all be treated as so. Presuming anything about me merely because of my race is.... racist. Assuming my race because I write this is... also racist.

 

So what is? Do you have something in support of your claim?

 

Perhaps the most obvious and immediate issue right now is that we have a president who is promoting white supremacist assaults on that equality.

And, that is an assault on our constitution.

 

What the hell did he say? Google returns no relevant results for "Trump white supremacist assaults."

 

I think folks confuse Social Darwinism with racism/ Supremacist stuff. The two are not the same.

Trump is a Social Darwinist..

 

I think folks confuse EVERYTHING with the racism/ Supremacist stuff!

Interesting. What makes him that?