Do The People Have The Moral Authority To Outlaw Atheism?

Since you tend to speak in a philosophical manner, I don't think that it's philosophically valid to ask someone to prove your comment wrong. We have a law In philosophy, the burden and the responsibility of proving a claim is on the claimant.
If you claim that the evolution somehow (majically) stopped working on humans, it's on you to prove it not on someone else to prove you wrong.
And that goes to the BIBLE as well. We all born to this world. We didn't know anything about any god and the "6 days of our creation". Someone came and CLAIMED these and said that if you think I'm wrong then prove me wrong. BUT he never proved his claim. So you're the claimant, prove yourself.

 

Thank you for your comment.
I just recently ended my participation in a thread on Evolution
I have at present lost interest in kicking that subject around.
I have even lost interest in further discussion of this thread's OP.
Anyway, thank you for the invitation to chat.

________

I have no problems with you believing that your wee ancestors,
at some point the size of a golf ball, or smaller, crawled up out of
the Primordial Slime or the Primordial Soup and as time passed
they became Monkeys or Chimps or whatever you want to
believe they became.

Party on.

Best.

JAG


``

 

THAT'S your reply? Gee, you normally do MUCH better than that!

 

Not according to IMDB. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086465/

 

I don’t know how thought can be outlawed.

 

You're welcome, I'm in whenever you want.

 

The final authority on what?

 

The Final Authority on Everything.
If there is no God, then Who or What is Higher than Collective Humanity?
Answer: Nothing. If there is no God, then nothing is Higher than Collective Humanity.

■ "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?
Are you one of them?

_________

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?
Are you one of them?

JAG


``

 

Good.
The subject is Math , , , ,
What are your thoughts on this , , ,

JAG Writes:
My view is that Math originated in the nature of God who
was the Original Mathematician --- just as all the other
disciplines also originated in the nature of God.

God was the , , ,
Original Mathematician
Original Physicist
Original Cosmologist
Original Inventor
Original Artist
Original Scientist
Original Oceanographer
Original Philosopher
Original Epistemologist
Original Empiricist
Original Poet
Original Writer
Original Lover {wanting the best for others}
Original Chooser { Volition }
Original Economist
Original Emotion-ist {the full range of All Good Emotions}
Original Planner
Original Creator
Original Designer
Original Technologist
Original Everything Good , , ,

, , and we humans participate in all that up there since we are
made in the image of God , , ,

, , and that above is why human beings, made in the image of God,
have been able to build the modern world and will be able to keep making
progress in Science and Technology for ever and ever, even when the
human race makes the transition from Earthly human history to Eternity.

Humans are made in the image of God and God has , ,
~ An Intellect --- and so do we humans
~ Emotions --- and so do we humans
~ Volition {a Will, the ability to choose -- and so do we humans

God's Human Race Project ends victoriously.

JAG

``

 

Note , , ,
Keep in mind that the OP is a philosophical Thought Experiment
and does not reflect what I personally desire to see happen.
I do not personally want to see any belief outlawed anywhere,
not ever.

I guess you're referring to the OP?
If so, the OP did not say and did not even slightly suggest
that thought could be outlawed. The OP specifically
specified "the public expression of your beliefs" and
not your "thoughts."

Here is a section from the OP that made it crystal clear
what the OP was talking about with regard to outlawing.
{Note the bolded red below}

JAG Wrote In The OP:
Some Miscellaneous Thoughts Relating To This Question:
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?
End quote.

JAG

 

Quote from the link you put up - something that backs up your claim.

Please go figure out what "Biological Determinism" is - and get back to me when you figure out why trading places is based on what was previously discussed in relation to "Biological Determinism" -

Then google "The Nature Nurture Debate" as was previously discussed - and tell me how on God's green earth the main theme of the movie "Trading Places" is NOT - the Nature Nurture debate.

I asked you previously if you knew what Social Darwinism was - and you said no - basically. Time to learn what it is along with "Biological Determinism" and "The Nature Nurture" Debate- as this conversation is pointless without these basics.

Biological Determinism - is an aspect /Branch of Social Darwinism - one term can be used interchangeably with the other for the most part.
The NN debate is one of the primary debates where the above are on the side of Nature - genetics ... genes.

One of the primary contentions of Biological Determinism is that success or failure of an individual is rooted strengths or weaknesses in ones character - or ones traits and that this is rooted in one's genes.

The central premise of the movie Trading Places - is to test this theory - Is it Nature - or Nurture. One's Genes - or one's environment.

In the movie Trading places - who win's the bet ? Is it Nature - or Nurture ?

 

We all know what the OP intended,
I’ve had my say.
Now I’m done.

 

No.
"We all" did not know.
You did NOT know.
If you had known you would not have posted this:
"I don’t know how thought can be outlawed."__Cirdellin

, , ,because the OP , , ,

, , , did not say and did not even slightly suggest
that thought could be outlawed. The OP specifically
specified "the public expression of your beliefs" and
not your "thoughts."

Here is a section from the OP that made it crystal clear
what the OP was talking about with regard to outlawing.
{Note the bolded red below}

JAG Wrote In The OP:
Do 98% The People of Earth have a Moral Right to outlaw
the public expression of your beliefs?
98% of The People collectively outlawing the public expression of
Atheism, or Secular Humanism or Christianity?
End quote.

Sounds good to me.
By the way, your "say" was wrong.
"I don’t know how thought can be outlawed."__Cirdellin


JAG


``

 

It’s hard to imagine much less care or measure how little I care about your opinion on this.
Good luck to you on this or other forums that change public opinions not even in scintillas.
Bye!

 

I wasn't aware that there were any statues of Hitler. There are statues of Stalin, a nasty but important figure in the history of Russia and WWII. I don't think anybody has been hurt by a statue.

 

It’s one courageous thing to take on a powerful political figure that can harm you mightily but a mightily cowardly thing to take on a statue of that person who is long dead.
Let us not confuse courage and cowardice any longer!

 

Statues are representations. People who can't abide representations have a very serious problem.

 

Interesting phrasing , , ,
~ imagine
~ care
~ measure

It was NOT , , , my "opinion" , , ,

, , it was hard Fact , , ,FACT , , ,

You in FACT did NOT know what the OP said.
If you had known you would not have posted this:
"I don’t know how thought can be outlawed."__Cirdellin

, , ,because the OP , , ,

, , , did not say and did not even slightly suggest
that thought could be outlawed. The OP specifically
specified "the public expression of your beliefs" and
not your "thoughts."

Here is a section from the OP that made it crystal clear
what the OP was talking about with regard to outlawing.
{Note the bolded red below}

JAG Wrote In The OP:
Do 98% The People of Earth have a Moral Right to outlaw
the public expression of your beliefs?
98% of The People collectively outlawing the public expression of
Atheism, or Secular Humanism or Christianity?
End quote.

Thank you for the good luck wish.
Regarding your point about "scintillas": You might be right,
yet one never knows who reads posts in threads and is helped
be what they read.

For example some of your "fellow human beings" might come
along and read what you wrote where you said , , ,

"It’s hard to imagine much less care or measure how little I care
about your opinion on this.
Good luck to you on this or other forums that change public opinions
not even in scintillas.
Bye!"
___Cirdellin

And they might "feel the love" that you expressed and they might be
encouraged to follow your example and post kindness the next time
they write a post.

Goodbye.

JAG


``

 

This argument for theocracy fails because you have neither demonstrated that we can know Gods will or dostinguish it from men who seek to rule by purporting to speak God's will, and because generally historically human democratic government has created better, freer and more equitable societies than theocratic government.

 

“About the gods, I am not able to know whether they exist or do not exist, nor what they are like in form; for the factors preventing knowledge are many: the obscurity of the subject, and the shortness of human life."

Protagoras

 

When you relate all these features to the god and then relate the same features in human to god, the first step for you is to define the god very clearly for me.
It's a step that can not be skipped.
You should explain who god is? What form does it have? When did you discover him and how? What can it do? How it's been created if ever, very clearly, and only then you can say he/she/it is artist, creator, etc. And I don't accept the "our mind can't comprehend god" for an answer because if we can't comprehend it then how can we conclude it?

Why do you think that human race is making progress? What's you're gage of progression? And are humans the only species who are progressing? What do we know about the life of animals and their emotions, what about undersea life? What's going on in the oceans? What about the universe? Where are we in this vast universe? How can you distinguish us humans from the universe? Do we even know the universe?

 

When I compare the year 1865 with the year 2020 I see that
there were no super highways coast to coast in 1865 in America,
but there are super highways coast to coast in the year 2020 in
America.

There are many other entities on the list of comparisons.
~ Life expectancy.
~ Infant mortality.
~ Dental health.
~ Wealth of U.S. Households

Be back later , , ,

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 Cor. 8;9


``

 

God is not fully incomprehensible as explained in this
paragraph below ;

"The incomprehensibility of God means that he is not able
to be fully known. Isaiah 40:28 says "his understanding no
one can fathom". Louis Berkhof states that "the consensus
of opinion" through most of church history has been that
God is the "Incomprehensible One". Berkhof, however,
argues that, "in so far as God reveals Himself in His
attributes, we also have some knowledge of His Divine
Being, though even so our knowledge is subject to
human limitations .[24]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity#Incomprehensibility

______________

But even though we can not fully comprehend God --- there
is a lot that we can know about God, so as to provide a "working
definition" of God.

______________


"The Westminster Shorter Catechism's definition of God is merely
an enumeration of his attributes: "God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal,
and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice,
goodness, and truth."[4] This answer has been criticized however,
as having "nothing specifically Christian about it."[5] The Westminster
Larger Catechism adds certain attributes to this description, such as
"all-sufficient," "incomprehensible," "every where present" and
"knowing all things".[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity#Incomprehensibility

______________

Here is a list of the attributes of God:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity#Incomprehensibility

_____________

Here is one attribute of God:

Eternity.

"The eternity of God concerns his existence beyond time. Drawing on verses
such as Psalm 90:2, Wayne Grudem states that, "God has no beginning, end,
or succession of moments in his own being, and he sees all time equally vividly,
yet God sees events in time and acts in time."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributes_of_God_in_Christianity#Incomprehensibility

_____________


Be conversational now, don't be dismissive. You wanted to chat about God and I am
doing exactly that with you.

Try to have some of what we can call "conversational curiosity" and make some
interesting responses and not some dismissive comments indicating that you
have no conversational curiosity about what I just posted.

Best.

JAG

 

You can't oulaw atheism because the first amendment protects the right tonot practice religion

 

From the description: "A snobbish investor and a wily street con artist find their positions reversed as part of a bet by two callous millionaires."