It also involves someone who wishes to live the life of a criminal. If he wants to live his life this way. Why can you say he is wrong.
If his actions bring harm to people, then we make them criminal. If they don't, they shouldn't be against the law.
People don't want to be harmed. That's why people agree to have laws.
It may be wrong to you and someone else but not to him.
If it causes demonstratable harm to other people, then we're justified in using the laws of our society - of which he chose to remain a part - to prevent or correct his actions.
You keep ignoring the harm aspect of my argument, why is that? You keep focusing on persons who hold ridiculous or selfish views, and ignore the basic, simple truth - folks make laws because folks want to be protected from those who harm them. This isn't rocket science, Almeyda. You don't believe laws are good because God told you they are. You believe laws are good because they protect you from people who want to kill you and take your stuff. Why do you think that's a position that an atheist can't hold, as well?
But wheres the consistency. Why is abortion legalized if it it causes harm to a baby and takes away life?. I know such ethics can cause harm but why are they wrong?. Why is human suffering wrong?. Its because the majority have said so. Nothing more. Humans are just accidents and another evolved animal why is it wrong to cause human suffering. In naturalistic evolutionary terms what is a human that it is wrong to make one suffer?. Since there is so absolute authority, & just opinion. This must mean we have free-will. Therefore each one of us can decide for themselves weather something is right or wrong. One may decide rape is right. Who can say no its wrong because i or we say so?. An athiest can hold the position you speak of if he wants. He can also take the position of well this is a natural world and things just happen. Therefore i must decide formyself what is right or wrong. If at all anything is right or wrong. Athiest can take both positions and neither can impose their view on each other saying your wrong and im right.
1) The only acceptable moral standard is that of whichever sect you belong to. You won't accept any other standard so everyone else must be forced to go along with you.
2) Evolution contradicts the teachings of your sect. If people knew that your sect was wrong on factual issues they would question their authority on moral issues.
3) Therefore the only way to have a moral society is to establish a ruthless religious tyranny which suppresses all dissent.
If that's not what you mean then please answer the following questions.
A) The Bible needs to be interpreted - who gets to produce the authoritative interpretation ?
B) The largest Christian denominations see no contradiction between accepting evolution and using the Bible as a moral guide. If their view is accepted then this issue is irrelevant to the topic of the thread. Why must their views be rejected ?
C) Many people do not accept the Bible as a moral guide. How do you suggest that that should be changed ? Your answer must understand that the moral atrocities found in the Old Testament are one of the reasons why the Bible is rejected.
D) Many people have other sacred books that they consider to be authoritiative moral guides above the Bible. Why dhould those views be suppressed and how should it be done ?
Consistency is good, but it must take a backseat to practicality. For instance:
Why is abortion legalized if it it causes harm to a baby and takes away life?
Because enforcing bans on abortion harms more women than it saves babies.
Why is human suffering wrong?.
Did I say it was? I just said people don't like to suffer. I don't like it. You don't like it. Nobody does.
Why should we make people suffer if they don't want to? Doesn't it serve us all better if we come to an agreement and find ways to prevent us from making each other suffer?
You don't want to suffer, right? Neither do I. So why do we need any more justification for avoiding suffering than that? You're making this too complicated.
Humans are just accidents and another evolved animal why is it wrong to cause human suffering.
It's not wrong. It's just that people don't want to suffer. So we make laws that prevent suffering by promising suffering for lawbreakers.
It works, mostly. Since no one wants to suffer, they have a pretty good reason not to make other people suffer.
Who can say no its wrong because i or we say so?
Because your neighboors and I all got together and agreed that we didn't want you to rape our daughters, and so if you did, we'd kill you.
As it turns out, if there's no cosmic law preventing you from raping, there's no cosmic law that says we have to let you do it.
Athiest can take both positions and neither can impose their view on each other saying your wrong and im right.
Well, since society as a whole is going to kick your ass if you bring harm to people, and presumably you don't want your ass kicked, why don't you just play along? It makes everybody happier, including you.
It's really very simple. Societies enforce laws because they want to, and there's no cosmic law that says they can't. Just because you think you can do what you want and harm to others be dammed, doesn't mean I have to let you.
Well all this does is inforce the majoritys opinion into being made the dogma that all humans must follow. And punishing those who choose not to follow?. I thought there was no absolutes in a evolutionary world. So it seems that the world is being forced to embrace the religion of humanism.
This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-26-2004 04:33 AM
This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-26-2004 04:36 AM
Well all this does is inforce the majoritys opinion into being made the dogma that all humans must follow.
No, of course it doesn't. There's no dogma, no following.
Anyway a fundamentalist Christian is absolutely nobody to be talking about forcing people to follow dogma.
And punishing those who choose not to follow?
It's not about punishment. It's about protection. It's about getting people to minimize the harm they do to other people. For the vast, vast majority of people, telling them as children not to hurt other people is enough. But there's always a few people who need correction. Since suffering is something nobody wants, we apply a little of it to them in order to convince them to reduce the suffering they inflict on others.
I thought there was no absolutes in a evolutionary world.
There's not. There's just people, and they get to decide how they want to live. Societies that decide to live by rules succeed, persist, and are strong. Societies that don't either destroy themselves or are abandoned, because they have no way to minimize the infliction of harm.
So it seems that the world is being forced to embrace the religion of humanism.
Only insomuch as everyone in the world is a human. That's like saying everyone is forced to follow the religion of "air-breathing." Once again you've made the definition of "religion" so broad, it has no meaning.
The only things that you're forced to follow are the laws of physics. Nothing compels you to follow the laws we make to keep people from harm. But by the same token nothing stops us from trying to prevent you from harming people.
"What gets me is all the mean things people say about Secular Humanism without even taking the time to read some of our basic scriptures, such as the Bill of Rights or Omni magazine." - Barbara Ehrenreich
An educated opinion is called an educated opinion because there should be reasons for the person to have such an opinion.
Example of an educated opinion: It is my educated opinion that the sun orbits the Earth. I see it rise in the east and set in the west every damn day of my life. I've never been to school before, so I have no other data to compare this particular observation with.
Example of a pile-of-crap opinion: It is my opinion that the Atlantic ocean is filled with pepsi. This is my opinion because... I just have this gut feeling.