Atheist ethics, atheist values

[Braunwyn]

It means that freedom of religion is getting to pick which church you go to.

and the "not freedom from religion" means what?

TheLowlyTortoise, what does ^^^ that mean?

 

[JediMobius]

Attributing person to what you designate as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient non physical thing is in fact stretching.

Restricting the idea of a "person" to human beings is not a "fact" of anything other than your personal perception of language and philosophy. Every definition of person speaks of either "being," "individual," or in theology the three parts in one of the trinune of God. The only exception is the legal definition of person, which of course has no bearing on legal discussion especially considering that many english words take on completely different meanings in legalese.

Person is an accurate word to describe any self-conscious being with higher intelligence, regardless of unique ability and nature. Quit trying to twist my words into something they're not.

Ah so it is the opinion of a person that a book about say football, is about football. Nope, a book of opinions is in fact a book of opinions.

You could say that a book is about football, but that's only your opinion, the book could very well be about personal struggle and overcoming adversity, only that it centers around football, but your opinion would still be that it's just about football. If you continue to use the term "in fact" to describe your opinions, I may never take anything you purport to be fact as anything more than opinion.

Try addressing points instead of inane, non replies.

I'm sorry, I was only following suit.

Try addressing points instead of inane, non replies. And if you use subjective words in trying to describe what you call objective, the fault is your own.

You mean words that you think are subjective based on one or few facets of the full meaning, or even just your own connotation of the word.

Ah the all ecompassing Whatever reply. Try addressing points instead of inane, non replies, and obvious evading.

You know, I tried that, but your inane non-replies and your veiled evasions make it nigh impossible.

 

[SiderealExalt]

When I say secular ethics, I mean what is right or wrong based on worldly perspective. This is in general decided by people who think they know what's best, whether they represent the people or not, or are the people. Secular ethics are vastly subjective, this doesn't contradict the notion of objective morality any more than hot contradicts the notion of cold.

On the former part of that. Some people having arbitrary, ends justify the means sort of moral structures does not in any way equate "secular ethics". For that matter, it seems that religious ethics can be just as rife with people with that sort of attitude.

And going on how many pages now, Tortoise has yet to establish what this nebulous objective morality is.

It means that freedom of religion is getting to pick which church you go to.

In this country it also means that there is no law, federal or state, that requires an individual to have to be a part of any given religious group, nor is affiliation with any religion a requirement of office.

 

[SiderealExalt]

Restricting the idea of a "person" to human beings is not a "fact" of anything other than your personal perception of language and philosophy. Every definition of person speaks of either "being," "individual," or in theology the three parts in one of the trinune of God. The only exception is the legal definition of person, which of course has no bearing on legal discussion especially considering that many english words take on completely different meanings in legalese.

Person is an accurate word to describe any self-conscious being with higher intelligence, regardless of unique ability and nature. Quit trying to twist my words into something they're not.

Theologians playing word soup in an attempt to make the unintelligible intelligible is stretching the definition.

You could say that a book is about football, but that's only your opinion, the book could very well be about personal struggle and overcoming adversity, only that it centers around football, but your opinion would still be that it's just about football. If you continue to use the term "in fact" to describe your opinions, I may never take anything you purport to be fact as anything more than opinion.

Your example still contains opinion in said book. And a book of opinions is still a book of opinions regardless of what ideas you may have about the book's contents.

I'm sorry, I was only following suit.

No you're doing what you usually do, spout nonanswers.

You mean words that you think are subjective based on one or few facets of the full meaning, or even just your own connotation of the word.

You should gain a better grasp of the english language. You were in fact, using words to describe subjective states.

You know, I tried that, but your inane non-replies and your veiled evasions make it nigh impossible.

I'm still waiting for you to address something.

 

[JediMobius]

Let me assume our country is founded on Christianity. Does this make this foundation right? Or does it make it coincidental? No one can deny that Christianity had a huge influence on the society that started the U.S. But no one can deny that Slavery also had a huge influence on the society that started the U.S. Our country probably could not have survived in the beginning without slavery. (Can't say for sure.)

Does that make slavery right? Just because it was part of the foundation of our country? No. The benefits of a particular practice are independent from whether or not the practice was there when the system first began.

So even IF our country was founded on Christianity, what difference does that make? You may say "Oh, it's worked for us till now," but what the Romans had worked for them until they collapsed. And when will we collapse? And what will we collapse from?

*shrug*

My argument in the first place that has produced this discussion is that such a thing as objective morals exist and can be seen in the US government. That's not to say that the US government (and all facilities thereof) are perfect or ever have been, but that objective morals are evident in that which is above us, the individuals, in the powers and principalities which govern acceptable human behavior.

Let me know if you still want a specific reply to your post, in whole or in part.

 

[JediMobius]

and the "not freedom from religion" means what?

TheLowlyTortoise, what does ^^^ that mean?

Freedom of religion means simply that - freedom to choose your religion, not freedom from all the people who choose a different religion. We all live here too, and we get a say based on our own convictions. No one gets to limit our right to have a say in a government of, by, and for the people on the basis of our Christian faith.

 

[JediMobius]

Theologians playing word soup in an attempt to make the unintelligible intelligible is stretching the definition.

Your example still contains opinion in said book. And a book of opinions is still a book of opinions regardless of what ideas you may have about the book's contents.

No you're doing what you usually do, spout nonanswers.

You should gain a better grasp of the english language. You were in fact, using words to describe subjective states.

I'm still waiting for you to address something.

You've given me little more than arguments based on opinion, yet stated as fact. I can't accurately reply to your perspectives when you present them as fact, nor your subjective reasoning disguised as logic.

 

[Braunwyn]

Freedom of religion means simply that - freedom to choose your religion, not freedom from all the people who choose a different religion. We all live here too, and we get a say based on our own convictions. No one gets to limit our right to have a say in a government of, by, and for the people on the basis of our Christian faith.

I don't think anyone would tell you what religion you should or shouldn't follow. At least secularists wouldn't bother, although I suppose folk from other religions might try to do that.

And who has claimed that religious people shouldn't have a say in gov? Or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean.

 

[God-free]

It says freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

What does it mean when people say this? What's the application?

Hi Braunwyn,

Two days after I joined CF I opened a thread on this very question. You can read it here (that forum is for Christians only now). I'm still not completely satisfied with the answer I received. Why not open a new thread on this topic here in E&M?

~Barbara

 

[SiderealExalt]

You've given me little more than arguments based on opinion, yet stated as fact. I can't accurately reply to your perspectives when you present them as fact, nor your subjective reasoning disguised as logic.

Still waiting for you to address points or provide actual support for your position.

 

[Braunwyn]

Hi Braunwyn,

Two days after I joined CF I opened a thread on this very question. You can read it here (that forum is for Christians only now). I'm still not completely satisfied with the answer I received. Why not open a new thread on this topic here in E&M?

~Barbara

Hi Barbara,

I like Ringo's sentiment...

"The government does not condone religion. In fact, it remains religiously neutral. Only when the government is completely religiously neutral, thus allowing citizens the freedom to believe or not believe freely, can true religious freedom thrive."

I suspect that those that say 'not freedom from religion' would like to see the US as a christian nation. Of course, it's doubtful that the various christian sects could ever come to an agreement of how an application could be realized. Eh, I can understand fascist attitudes. If I was dictator Braunwyn, ya'll would be vegans. lol

 

[God-free]

If I was dictator Braunwyn, ya'll would be vegans. lol

I would probably be okay with that. On the other hand, my husband would probably lead the rebellion.

~Barbara

 

[SiderealExalt]

Hi Barbara,

I like Ringo's sentiment...

"The government does not condone religion. In fact, it remains religiously neutral. Only when the government is completely religiously neutral, thus allowing citizens the freedom to believe or not believe freely, can true religious freedom thrive."

I suspect that those that say 'not freedom from religion' would like to see the US as a christian nation. Of course, it's doubtful that the various christian sects could ever come to an agreement of how an application could be realized. Eh, I can understand fascist attitudes. If I was dictator Braunwyn, ya'll would be vegans. lol

Hence why I find Tortoise's reply so ridiculous.

And Christians are quick to forget that a Christian theocracy would be highly conducive to administering some sort of policy if someone is not part of the country's orthodoxy.

As ringo so well put it, and you quoted, religious freedom, from and of, is only possible if the government remains neutral and simply creates an enviroment of fair opportunity and impartiality.

 

[WatersMoon110]

I would probably be okay with that. On the other hand, my husband would probably lead the rebellion.

Heh, I'd be there next to him. Not that I think that there is anything wrong with choosing to eat a vegan diet, but I do not want anyone trying to force their moral choices on me. I consider opposing all such attempts to be the only ethical path. *wink*

 

[TeddyKGB]

Obviously, in the style of the age of enlightenment, only those who fit the profile make it into that section of history. For all its accuracy, secular history is biased.

You are mad if you think history writ large reflects a bias against religion writ large or even against Christianity.

As much as I hate to argue via cliche, the saying is, "History is written by the victors" not "History is written by the anti-religionists."

Be that as it may, that wouldn't have happened in the first place if not for the majority of americans being christian, which in turn wouldn't have been a 1950's phenomenon, but an established aspect of american society.

It shouldn't have happened at all. It was a violation of the Constitution, a consequence of fear-mongering, propaganda, and mob rule, and has been propped up by the lamest of lame court opinions: ceremonial deism.

By the by, the "ceremonial deism" business completely undermines the opinion that the Constitution naturally permits the kind of overt religious references which we are discussing.

Not so is it irrelevant, it's part of the foundations of our nation.

No, it isn't. The ex-colonists could have established any type of nation they wanted after independence from England. The DoI tells us nothing about how me must govern ourselves. The Constitution wasn't even the first stab at developing a state.

Effective at controlling sheep. That's more or less what the government started doing as early as the turn of the 20th century.

I agree. Religion is and has always been, to a certain extent, used to control.

I suspect you are confused about what you were responding to.

I worded that poorly, I meant the Christian influence of the foundations of the US. I'm sure you still disagree, even though only a handful of all the men involved were deists.

I have no intention to misrepresent facts. Franklin, Madison, Paine, and Jefferson were unqualified deists. Washington, Monroe, and Adams used a good deal of deistic language. Most of the rest were Christians of one flavor or another, with Protestantism dominant overall and Episcopalianism heavily over-represented within that.

It is my considered opinion, however, that the bulk of the political philosophy that underpins the Constitution is derived from the Enlightenment-style thinking characteristic of the gentlemen already mentioned. The Enlightenment represented a sea change in thinking and, while dominated by Christians, nonetheless produced seminal secular philosophy from the likes of Hume, Paine, Spinoza, and Rousseau, and featured the first openly atheist thinker and author in d'Holbach.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

It doesn't matter what the minority of people do with a freedom, it's still a freedom.

Yes and no. Though it is a freedom to buy guns, it is not necessarily a freedom we should have.

Guns are not the issue, take away guns and you still have killers, most of whom will still have access to guns even if they're banned, just like people still had access to alcohol even while it was banned. Guns can be made illegally, and killers can resort to other methods of murder.

On the contrary, the evidence shows that crime stats go up with gun proliferation. The fact is, most armed criminals get their weaponry via legal means. Take away the ease with which you can get guns, and most criminals would have no way of getting them.

If the issue is teen suicides, very many of those kids would still find a way to try to kill themselves. Accidental shootings by kids who don't know better? The parents should have made sure the kid knew better if they were going to keep a gun in the house.

Or, y'know, not have a gun in the first place. But then, someone who is determined to kill themselves will find a way.

Take away freedoms, and we take away personal responsibility. However, take away freedom, and we won't take away the problem because the freedom is not the cause of the problem.

I disagree. We should have freedoms, yes, but not the freedom to do anything.

When I say secular ethics, I mean what is right or wrong based on worldly perspective. This is in general decided by people who think they know what's best, whether they represent the people or not, or are the people. Secular ethics are vastly subjective, this doesn't contradict the notion of objective morality any more than hot contradicts the notion of cold.

Agreed. It is the observed subjectivity of morals that casts doubt on the existence of an objective morality.

The unborn child, who else?

The other people involved. And there is no 'unborn child', merely a foetus. Emotionally charged terminology obfuscates the issue.

The objective moral is the sake of the child. The subjective moral is the idea that the woman has the freedom to choose, which isn't ethical at all, but a lack of ethics.

On the contrary, secular ethics acknowledges that children deserve consideration. But forgive me if I consider the following two different things:

Oh, you'll get a response, maybe even a few, but how do you know if that response is from God?

I like to call it the underground Christianity. God's children can be found in every denomination. The division in the church is due to man-made doctrine, people who thought they understood the truth, but didn't let God reveal the truth to them. There's no visible group I can point to, no all-inclusive defining qualities other than the Holy Spirit and the fruits thereof.

And what fruits are they, such that we might know them?

Compassion: 1.a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering.

I apologize for assuming your motives. What you're talking about is community, like an extended family of everyone you interact with. Being helpful is not the same as compassion.

Perhaps, but from your definition I consider myself compassionate: I said "I help them because I do not wish to see them come to harm" because I has "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering".

If that's really all our laws and freedoms really are, then they must be worthless!

Indeed.

But then, law and freedom would be equal to, or lesser than the individual. If laws and freedoms are not above us (as individuals), then we have personal authority over those laws and freedoms and can interpret, follow, or reject them at whim

Nope: as a society, we enforce those laws, much in the same way as we set them up in the first place. The society deems certain behaviour unacceptable, and punishes transgressors. In my society, at least, we have a democratic system to determine what to punish and what to allow.

The various amendments to various constitutions attest more to the subjectivity of secular ethics than to the non-existence of objective morals.

No one denies that secular ethics are subjective, nor that they change.

 

[jcook922]

I would probably be okay with that. On the other hand, my husband would probably lead the rebellion.

~Barbara

I'd be right there with him. Steak on the grill.

 

[TooCurious]

Take away freedoms, and we take away personal responsibility. However, take away freedom, and we won't take away the problem because the freedom is not the cause of the problem.

I just want you to remember you said that, for later in this post.

When I say secular ethics, I mean what is right or wrong based on worldly perspective.

This is the only perspective that it can be conclusively demonstrated we have access to. Claims of access to "objective morality" are merely that: claims. They remain unsubstantiated.

This is in general decided by people who think they know what's best, whether they represent the people or not, or are the people. Secular ethics are vastly subjective, this doesn't contradict the notion of objective morality any more than hot contradicts the notion of cold.

Indeed; the notion of objective morality contradicts itself, at least in practice, since the human perspective is (by definition) subjective, and morality can only be demonstrated to exist in the minds of humans.

The unborn child, who else? The objective moral is the sake of the child.

There are other morals at stake here, regardless of whether you wish to gloss over or ignore them. The woman has the right to determine what happens to her body, and whether anyone else is allowed to live inside it and use its resources. Every person must be free to make this decision for him- or herself. Remember, you said "Take away the freedom, and we don't take away the problem because the freedom is not the cause of the problem."

The subjective moral is the idea that the woman has the freedom to choose, which isn't ethical at all, but a lack of ethics.

No; allowing a third party to take away the woman's freedom to choose whether or not to allow the tenancy and use of her body demonstrates a lack of ethics.

I like to call it the underground Christianity. God's children can be found in every denomination. The division in the church is due to man-made doctrine, people who thought they understood the truth, but didn't let God reveal the truth to them. There's no visible group I can point to, no all-inclusive defining qualities other than the Holy Spirit and the fruits thereof.

So there's no way you can actually demonstrate evidence of your claim, no set of "defining qualities"? Then your claim remains unsubstantiated.

If that's really all our laws and freedoms really are, then they must be worthless!

Conclusion does not follow from premises.

But then, law and freedom would be equal to, or lesser than the individual.

Rather, they would be equal to (if by that, you mean "derived from the authority of") society as a whole, rather than any particular individual. They do, however, protect the individual.

If laws and freedoms are not above us (as individuals), then we have personal authority over those laws and freedoms and can interpret, follow, or reject them at whim. The various amendments to various constitutions attest more to the subjectivity of secular ethics than to the non-existence of objective morals.

Or rather, the subjectivity of all ethics-in-practice. You have yet to demonstrate (rather than just claim) how, even if such a thing as "objective morality" existed, humans could access it while preserving its objectivity.

Freedom of religion means simply that - freedom to choose your religion,

Including "none of the above."

not freedom from all the people who choose a different religion.

No, not freedom from those people -- but yes, freedom from their arbitrary and particular will. That is the primary purpose of government: to protect the individual from the arbitrary and particular will of the majority.

We all live here too, and we get a say based on our own convictions. No one gets to limit our right to have a say in a government of, by, and for the people on the basis of our Christian faith.

No one's talking about "limiting the right to have a say in government" of Christians. All that is being said is that Christians (and, for that matter, everyone else) cannot use the government to enforce their personal beliefs on anyone else at the expense of any individual's constitutionally-protected freedoms. A law must have a primarily secular purpose if it is to stand up to constitutional scrutiny. You cannot use the law to force non-Christians to adhere to any particular tenet of Christian doctrine. There are certainly cases where a compelling secular interest (preventing theft, for instance) happens to coincide with Christian beliefs, but the law is not enacted because of Christian doctrine; it is enacted because it has a secular purpose.

The United States is a constitutional republic, not a pure majority-rule democracy. You (the general "you") do not get to force your will upon the minority simply because there are more of you; there are rules to which you must adhere.

 

[allhart]

I just want you to remember you said that, for later in this post.



This is the only perspective that it can be conclusively demonstrated we have access to. Claims of access to "objective morality" are merely that: claims. They remain unsubstantiated.



Indeed; the notion of objective morality contradicts itself, at least in practice, since the human perspective is (by definition) subjective, and morality can only be demonstrated to exist in the minds of humans.



There are other morals at stake here, regardless of whether you wish to gloss over or ignore them. The woman has the right to determine what happens to her body, and whether anyone else is allowed to live inside it and use its resources. Every person must be free to make this decision for him- or herself. Remember, you said "Take away the freedom, and we don't take away the problem because the freedom is not the cause of the problem."

The subjective moral is the idea that the woman has the freedom to choose, which isn't ethical at all, but a lack of ethics.

No; allowing a third party to take away the woman's freedom to choose whether or not to allow the tenancy and use of her body demonstrates a lack of ethics.



So there's no way you can actually demonstrate evidence of your claim, no set of "defining qualities"? Then your claim remains unsubstantiated.



Conclusion does not follow from premises.



Rather, they would be equal to (if by that, you mean "derived from the authority of") society as a whole, rather than any particular individual. They do, however, protect the individual.



Or rather, the subjectivity of all ethics-in-practice. You have yet to demonstrate (rather than just claim) how, even if such a thing as "objective morality" existed, humans could access it while preserving its objectivity.



Including "none of the above."



No, not freedom from those people -- but yes, freedom from their arbitrary and particular will. That is the primary purpose of government: to protect the individual from the arbitrary and particular will of the majority.



No one's talking about "limiting the right to have a say in government" of Christians. All that is being said is that Christians (and, for that matter, everyone else) cannot use the government to enforce their personal beliefs on anyone else at the expense of any individual's constitutionally-protected freedoms. A law must have a primarily secular purpose if it is to stand up to constitutional scrutiny. You cannot use the law to force non-Christians to adhere to any particular tenet of Christian doctrine. There are certainly cases where a compelling secular interest (preventing theft, for instance) happens to coincide with Christian beliefs, but the law is not enacted because of Christian doctrine; it is enacted because it has a secular purpose.

The United States is a constitutional republic, not a pure majority-rule democracy. You (the general "you") do not get to force your will upon the minority simply because there are more of you; there are rules to which you must adhere.

People just don't get it. You have smoke in your eye's and can't see past yourself and what you want,So you truly don't know what you ask for and give up. Liberty with out law / boundary is anarchy, liberty to defy law is rebellion,but liberty limited by law is a cornerstone of civilization.God and his people have tried to help people understand that freedom is what creates life. That's what he intended us to have from the beginning.America has become paralyzed in a great global desert of trouble in suffering, repression and tyranny. Today a precious heritage of our freedom is being challenged internally by the erosion of our culture. (Moral Decay)

 

[TuxThePenguin]

allhart all I hear is a tirade of opinion rather than a reasoned argument.

please try harder.