PDA

View Full Version : Does Liberty exist without God?




Ian A.
10-03-2009, 01:42 AM
Jefferson wrote

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.

Tom wasn't pulling those words out of his ass when he wrote that. He was a brilliant philosopher who understood that without a Being (i.e. God) who transcends everything including space, matter, and time, then human beings have no "rights" at all. From an atheistic viewpoint "Rights" and "Morality" are just subjective beliefs. William Lane Craig lays out this argument here:


YouTube - Where do Objective Morals Originate in the Universe? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK-PW6GS_IM&feature=PlayList&p=7FFD52BD30F72FD8&index=16&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL)

So despite our mods who placed this Religion forum in "Off-Topic," the truth is that without God, we have no justification to champion Liberty, and no reason to be on this forum.

Judge Napolitano's talks about this during this speech on this subject:




I have a couple of beliefs--firm beliefs that Jefferson called Truisms. A Truism is something that is so obvious that it doesn't have to be proven, and here they are:

1. The first of these Truisms is that God created every human being on the planet in his own image and likeness.

2. Because he is perfectly free, he has created us in a state of perfect freedom.

3. In order to protect those freedoms, and for no other purpose we have established a government, and the ONLY legitimate role of the Government is to protect human freedom.

4. Every individual has an immortal soul. Capable of glorifying God infinitely and Eternally. The Government is just an artificial organization based on fear and force. If you don't believe me, take the words of the first two American Presidents. George Washington said it was based on force, and John Adams said it was based on fear; I think they knew what they were talking about.

Now, there was a time when everybody in America believed all of this.

Tom Woods has just given us a brilliant and succinct analysis of how we lost these beliefs, and consequently lost the freedoms that the beliefs animated.

http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/files/2009/07/judge_napolitano.jpg

hillbilly123069
10-03-2009, 01:43 AM
There is no existence without Him.And no salvation without Jesus.

Andrew-Austin
10-03-2009, 02:28 AM
Now that you have these fine appeals to authority going, I'm just going to have to cast aside my trust in empiricism and reason over dated mysticism. Not.

I don't exactly have the energy to prove to you that religion does not have to have a monopoly over morality (and thus convert you to atheism), when you are already heavily engaged in seeing what you want to see and looking only for things that confirm your bias. For starters its not all that nice to selectively point to one atheist who casts aside the notion of morality, under the guise that he speaks for all atheists or knows better than all atheists. Why don't you look in to atheists who do posit that morality can be defined through reason, because they certainly exist. Stefan Molyneux for instance.

And you probably don't believe in religion just because you think it is the only answer to the morality question, rather you believed in your religion first (as it was embedded in you by culture and family) and then jumped to that conclusion as a way of justifying irrational belief.

Even if it were true that the idea of morality is just nonsense without a mystical omnipotent ghost endorsing it, I still wouldn't believe in the ghost-energy-skyman thing. Its by far the more ridiculous approach to philosophy, its basically a non-answer.


Person A: God says X is moral, and Y is immoral.

Person B: How do you know this is so?

Person A: Because God said so?

Person B: How do you know God exists?

Person A: The Bible says so, its say to believe.

Person B: Well who wrote the bible?

Person A: Well a bunch of mortals wrote the bible, but God got inside their heads and formed the words for them. (some bullshit answer like that)

Person B: Do you have any other reason to believe in God?

Person A: Well sometimes my prayers have come true, and sometimes I get this really joyful-vague-awe inspiring feeling when I think about and worship God.

Person B: Yes sometimes I hope for things and they coincidentally come true, and I'm pretty sure most people at times feel a sense of wonder when pondering the unknown, and when looking st the stars, etc.

---

We can try this same type of discussion over and over regarding the religious approach to morality and only achieve similar non-answers. You could just as well form a religion around Congress, and have every law they write be deemed morality, without debate or judgment as to why these laws must constitute morality. It would be doing the same thing. Replace God with Congress or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Kotin
10-03-2009, 02:40 AM
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...






(just trying to save everyone some time)

BuddyRey
10-03-2009, 02:43 AM
Absolutely. Atheists enjoy the same intrinsic rights as theists. Rights are a product of the recognition of man's nature.

Andrew-Austin
10-03-2009, 02:49 AM
I have a couple of beliefs--firm beliefs that Jefferson called Truisms. A Truism is something that is so obvious that it doesn't have to be proven, and here they are:

1. The first of these Truisms is that God created every human being on the planet in his own image and likeness.

2. Because he is perfectly free, he has created us in a state of perfect freedom.

3. In order to protect those freedoms, and for no other purpose we have established a government, and the ONLY legitimate role of the Government is to protect human freedom.

4. Every individual has an immortal soul. Capable of glorifying God infinitely and Eternally. The Government is just an artificial organization based on fear and force. If you don't believe me, take the words of the first two American Presidents. George Washington said it was based on force, and John Adams said it was based on fear; I think they knew what they were talking about.

Now, there was a time when everybody in America believed all of this.

Tom Woods has just given us a brilliant and succinct analysis of how we lost these beliefs, and consequently lost the freedoms that the beliefs animated.

1. lol, that isn't obvious at all.

2,3&4. So if God created us in a perfect state of freedom, what ever happened to that perfect state of freedom anyways? And why did this entity called government enter the picture if we were originally in a perfect state of freedom? Surely the creation of man preceded the creation of anything remotely similar to what modern nation states look like? You say that governments are artificial constructs, and that their only purpose is to protect liberty. But don't governments (as they are defined today, territorial monopolists of ultimate decision making and the right to use force) inherently have to violate people's freedoms just to exist?
So if God created humans and wished us to live in the nearest state to perfect liberty as possible, and then humans create governments that only erode liberty and by their very nature must violate liberty just to exist, isn't that going against God's will?

Kludge
10-03-2009, 02:51 AM
Liberty can exist. Rights exist only as much as we secure others' belief in them (well... without some type of aggression involved, as Napolitano is advocating). There isn't really a "moral" argument for atheists regarding why we ought to have rights other than it removes a lot of problems from social interaction by divvying out who owns what absolutely.

Even if rights as Christians believe were to exist, that'd still only give them "moral authority" to secure their rights and not the essential might to enforce their will (or His will) here now.

Protecting freedoms (creating and securing rights) is itself an attack on our liberties. Therefor, if Christians were to claim that, as a "Truism" and something all Christians should take on faith, gov't ought to exist, and that it should exist to secure rights, then I would argue that liberty cannot exist with Christians' beliefs of God. Or, liberty cannot exist with God (and Napolitano's "Truisms").

emazur
10-03-2009, 03:32 AM
Do not do onto others as what you would not have them do onto you. That is liberty. I don't need a god to tell me it's immoral to steal because I wouldn't want anyone stealing from me. Parents could pass on this philosophy on to their children (who may be tempted to do things they shouldn't when they have yet to experience a particular action being done onto them) without religion being involved.

"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson

damon04
10-03-2009, 04:18 AM
Whether or not you believe God's existence, it comes down to this: Having God included as the one true universal being that bestows the natural rights, the Bill of Rights. It was meant to say that NO man posses the ability to strip them away. That is the perfect plan for such logical and reasonable people as our founders were.

Baptist
10-03-2009, 05:36 AM
I always tell people that even if you don't believe in God, it's important to state that we get our rights from Him. Why? Because what man gives man can take away. No man and no government can take away my rights, because I get them from God.

Myself, I'd rather live in any society where the government recognizes a higher power (even if only in lip service), than one that does not. I would rather live in a Jewish Israel than China, Cuba, U.S.S.R or North Korea. I'd rather live in Islamic Iran or Turkey, than the godless communist countries.

As far as the irrational argument goes... the reason I got back into church was because I started pursing a degree in biology and the sciences. Taking science classes reminded me of what I already knew: that we didn't come from primordial balls of ooze.

muzzled dogg
10-03-2009, 08:03 AM
well then your god must not exist cause i can't get any liberty for shit

tonesforjonesbones
10-03-2009, 08:29 AM
God / Jesus is the Great Libertarian...advocate for free will. This society has definately gone to the toilet since God became passe. tones

LibertyEagle
10-03-2009, 08:40 AM
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah...






(just trying to save everyone some time)

:D

heavenlyboy34
10-03-2009, 09:25 AM
I always tell people that even if you don't believe in God, it's important to state that we get our rights from Him. Why? Because what man gives man can take away. No man and no government can take away my rights, because I get them from God.

Myself, I'd rather live in any society where the government recognizes a higher power (even if only in lip service), than one that does not. I would rather live in a Jewish Israel than China, Cuba, U.S.S.R or North Korea. I'd rather live in Islamic Iran or Turkey, than the godless communist countries.

As far as the irrational argument goes... the reason I got back into church was because I started pursing a degree in biology and the sciences. Taking science classes reminded me of what I already knew: that we didn't come from primordial balls of ooze.


What you (and others who advance your position) fail to understand is that by advocating a State, you are undermining the authority of Yahweh/Yeshua.

Biblical Anarchism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/carson2.html)

some key quotes from the longer article:

"But most telling is what the Mosaic Law leaves out. There is no establishment of what we would now call an executive or a legislative body. There is no establishment of taxes (the religious rules require a tithe to support the priests but there is no punishment specified for failing to tithe). Civil order is kept by adherence to this legal code, private justice in the case of infractions of the code and private courts in the case of disagreements. In modern political terminology, this political system is called "anarchy." Anarchy literally means "without rulers." Modern libertarian anarchists (i.e. anarcho-capitalists), envision a system very much like this Mosaic system with no tax-funded political authority but with a system of private justice for mediating disputes and assigning restitution."

"Reading what G-d actually says through Samuel is a sobering reminder of how deeply heretical our modern faith in the State is: And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do."
Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." (I Samuel 8:7-18)
Here, the Bible makes it absolutely clear that the change from the Mosaic anarchy to what by today's standards would be a "limited government" will have terrible consequences and shows a tremendous lack of faith in G-d. This passage makes clear that the people of Israel committed a grievous sin when they rejected G-d's anarchy for a State."

emazur
10-03-2009, 09:30 AM
God / Jesus is the Great Libertarian...advocate for free will. This society has definately gone to the toilet since God became passe. tones

I guess your view of Jesus depends on your point of view.
On one hand:
"The Libertarian From Nazareth?"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/butler-b1.html

On the other:
YouTube - "Jesus was the first communist" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatoF2H-pnQ&feature=PlayList&p=C142E92ECC736A19&index=0&playnext=1)

Andrew-Austin
10-03-2009, 09:39 AM
I always tell people that even if you don't believe in God, it's important to state that we get our rights from Him. Why? Because what man gives man can take away. No man and no government can take away my rights, because I get them from God.

The existence of rights is a moral argument. You can make a moral argument without believing in God. The situation is the same for a Godless world or a Christian world - any man or the government can easily violate your rights. Just because someone infringes upon your rights, does not mean your right to liberty has been changed.

ronpaulhawaii
10-03-2009, 10:13 AM
The reason this is in Off-topic is because it is not crawled by google and guests will not be confronted with the inevitable flames associated with discussing religion on a political forum (especially one with a libertarian bent). Trolls love it when religion is discussed as they can fan those flames and make a board look like a bunch of wackos... We have lost more valuable activists due to the religion wars than any other issue.

This way, those who are interested in spending their time discussing possibly impossible possibilities have a place to do so, without scaring off those who see no value in the discussion for political purposes, nor wasting the time of people like myself, who feel religion is personal and have no desire to evangelize.

And mods don't make sub-forums, nor can we put them anywhere...

Ian A.
10-03-2009, 10:23 AM
It seems like some people here understand that without God, there is no OBJECTIVE morality or rights, there is only subjective beliefs--relative to each person and culture, but guys like emazur are skeptical:


Do not do onto others as what you would not have them do onto you. That is liberty. I don't need a god to tell me it's immoral to steal because I wouldn't want anyone stealing from me.

Yes, but stealing, killing, eating your own young, etc happens ALL THE TIME in the animal world. From an atheistic view, we are merely advanced primates who evolved to develop "morality" but this is all relative to each person, culture, and species. It has no deeper meaning. :o

Kludge gets the idea:


There isn't really a "moral" argument for atheists regarding why we ought to have rights other than it removes a lot of problems from social interaction by divvying out who owns what absolutely.

Exactly. Morality just makes life easier for the human species--no different than an ant who dies to protect the ant hill.

ClayTrainor
10-03-2009, 11:27 AM
It seems like some people here understand that without God, there is no OBJECTIVE morality or rights, there is only subjective beliefs--relative to each person and culture, but guys like emazur are skeptical:


Rights are inherent in our nature. It matters not to me, if you give credit to a supernatural being for them, or not. Their nature does not change.



Yes, but stealing, killing, eating your own young, etc happens ALL THE TIME in the animal world.
You act as if that doesn't happen, all the time, in the human world. Abortion is as bad as eating your young, imo. Also, humans are animals, and are part of the kingdom of animalia. Our minds have simply evolved far superior to all other species on this planet, but we are still physically inferior in many respects. Why would God create so many predators that could rip humans to shreds, before we developed technology? Over 300,000 people in INdia have been killed by tigers in the last decade. Why would god give them reason and rights, but no physical power to defend them, until we invent things? Did he intend for us to be food, until we figure shit out?

Animal:
"any member of the kingdom Animalia, comprising multicellular organisms that have a well-defined shape and usually limited growth, can move voluntarily, actively acquire food and digest it internally, and have sensory and nervous systems that allow them to respond rapidly to stimuli" - Dictionary.com

We are animals...



From an atheistic view, we are merely advanced primates who evolved to develop "morality" but this is all relative to each person, culture, and species. It has no deeper meaning. :o

If someone dropped you off naked in a forest, with no technology and you encountered a pack of 20 hungry wolves. Do you have a right to life? Yes, but the wolves aren't going to respect it. Do the wolves have a right to free speech? Are you going to stop them if they howl? Of course they have that right, but i for one respect the natural rights of humans not wolves. Therefore, if i was present with a gun, i would kill every single wolf to defend your singular human life.

My morality comes from respect for individual rights of man. I recognize no supreme being as a certainty nor as a necessity for the rights to exist. They are natural and inherent in our existence, not supernatural and explained to us in ancient texts.

Also, we are evolved primates. We're apes in the same way that both tigers and household cats are felines. You might think we're special apes touched by the finger of God or something, but we're still apes.

Maybe god created an ape, that doesn't like to think he's an ape ;)




Exactly. Morality just makes life easier for the human species--no different than an ant who dies to protect the ant hill.

Morality is defined by our natural rights, our natural rights are not defined by a supernatural Gods morality.

ForLiberty-RonPaul
10-03-2009, 11:32 AM
objectivity is totally subjective

ClayTrainor
10-03-2009, 11:35 AM
Morality is dependent on nature, but nature is not dependent on morality.

Genetics are memory to operate the biological functions of life, but morality is a form of memory that must be gained in the 3 dimensions that our conscious life exists in. All mamallian forms of life gain their morality and respect for rights of others from others who already existed in the 3 dimensions before them. they learn! We must learn the morality of man, based on our individual rights as they are inherent in our nature. Nature is not inherent with rights.

In other words, rights are the way in which you would prefer to be treated therefore, you should treat others the same way.

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" - Jesus

emazur
10-03-2009, 11:48 AM
Thanks Clay, saved me some typing - just one thing left for me -


From an atheistic view, we are merely advanced primates who evolved to develop "morality" but this is all relative to each person, culture, and species. It has no deeper meaning. :o


1) There are quite a few religions out there - do they all share the same notion of "morality", or is it relative to each religion? If it is relative, why?

2) Let's narrow it down to the Abrahamic religions. I'll presume you are Christian - do you share the same notions of morality of the Jews and Muslims? How about Catholics and Mormons? If not, why not?

emazur
10-03-2009, 11:56 AM
Morality is dependent on nature, but nature is not dependent on morality.

Genetics are memory to operate the biological functions of life, but morality is a form of memory that must be gained in the 3 dimensions that our conscious life exists in. We must learn the morality of man, based on our individual rights, as they are inherent in our nature. Nature is not inherent with rights.

In other words, rights are they way in which you would prefer to be treated therefore, you should treat others the same way.

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" - Jesus

I'd prefer "Do not do unto others, as you would not have them do unto you". "Do unto others" presumes you know what the other person wants, or the other person presumes what you want. And from there it easily transforms into doing unto you what you should want. That's how we wind up with things like government "education" and healthcare.

ClayTrainor
10-03-2009, 12:00 PM
I'd prefer "Do not do unto others, as you would not have them do unto you". "Do unto others" presumes you know what the other person wants, or the other person presumes what you want. And from there it easily transforms into doing unto you what you should want. That's how we wind up with things like government "education" and healthcare.

That's an interesting point, that i've never considered, it definitely makes some sense. :)

emazur
10-03-2009, 01:14 PM
That's an interesting point, that i've never considered, it definitely makes some sense. :)

I think my version is usually associated w/ Confucianism - I checked wikipedia and found a few interesting variations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Confucianism

Confucianism
See also: Confucianism
“ Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. ”

— Confucius, Analects XV.24 (tr. David Hinton)

The same idea is also presented in V.12 and VI.30 of the Analects.
[edit] Hinduism
See also: Hinduism
“ One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires. ”

— Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)[24]
[edit] Islam
See also: Islam
“ Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. ”

— Muhammad, The Farewell Sermon

Ian A.
10-03-2009, 02:29 PM
Rights are inherent in our nature. It matters not to me, if you give credit to a supernatural being for them, or not. Their nature does not change.

Actually under an atheistic view, our inherent morality changes all the time! The nazis believed what they did in the camps was good, while others thought it was evil. It's all relative.



Our minds have simply evolved far superior to all other species on this planet

I wouldn't say superior--I would say "differently." Imagine if neanderthals did not die out, and they evolved differently than us. Suppose they evolved with a completely different morality. Saying our morality is "superior" is speciesism.


i for one respect the natural rights of humans not wolves.

What if I respect the the natural rights of Gentiles but not Jews? This proves my point: under a naturalist view, rights are a matter of preference; of taste.

Michael Ruse wrote and interesting article called Is Rape Wrong on Andromeda? In it, he imagines an alien race who evolved differently than us, and developed their own moral values. They evolved to believe that rape is not immoral. If that alien race visited planet earth--and these aliens were as superior to us, as we are to pigs (or wolves)--and proceeded to rape humans, or harvest them for food, we would have no justification in saying that this was wrong. We would say that is evil, they would say it's good, and neither would be right.


My morality comes from respect for individual rights of man.

That's cool, but I personally don't have any morality. I like torturing animals, and sadism, and cruelty. If I really felt this way, there would be no objective difference between you and me. It would be the same as preferring McDonald's instead of Burger King.


Let's narrow it down to the Abrahamic religions. I'll presume you are Christian - do you share the same notions of morality of the Jews and Muslims? How about Catholics and Mormons? If not, why not?

Your misunderstanding my argument. I argue that objective and absolute morality does exist, and their is an absolute truth regardless of what differing religions say. An atheist can't make that claim. To him, morality is relative to how we evolved, to each culture, and each person.

emazur
10-03-2009, 02:49 PM
Your misunderstanding my argument. I argue that objective and absolute morality does exist, and their is an absolute truth regardless of what differing religions say. An atheist can't make that claim. To him, morality is relative to how we evolved, to each culture, and each person.

I'm an atheist and I do make the claim that "do no harm to others" is objective morality. In your first post you said

From an atheistic viewpoint "Rights" and "Morality" are just subjective beliefs.
Therefore, from a theistic viewpoint morality is objective? Then why do not all the people from different religions (the theists) have the same objective morality? If you again try to say I'm missing your argument, let me put it this way. Do you claim that because you are a theist (forget about any particular religion), you know what objective morality is? If so, would you care to give an outline of this objective morality?

Ian A.
10-03-2009, 03:24 PM
Do you claim that because you are a theist, you know what objective morality is?

No. You don't need to be a theist to know that you should love your children instead of torturing them. I believe that in some ways God has "hardwired" morality into our brains, but I could be 99% wrong about what is good/evil, but what I believe doesn't change a thing.

This is my only real argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.

2. Objective morality does exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

[edit] When I said "an atheist can't make that claim" I meant he can't justify the claim that objective morality exists, and he has no foundation for that belief--even if it's true.

ClayTrainor
10-04-2009, 10:57 AM
Actually under an atheistic view, our inherent morality changes all the time! The nazis believed what they did in the camps was good, while others thought it was evil. It's all relative.


First of all, i'm not an atheist.

second of all

"Iraq is Gods War" - Sarah Palin

"God told me to invade iraq" - George Bush

"We think the price is worth it" - Madeleine Albright when questioned on the Child deaths in Iraq.


All of the above are Christians. Clearly the belief in ancient texts and a supernatural being does not justifiy their view of morality.



Imagine if neanderthals did not die out, and they evolved differently than us. Suppose they evolved with a completely different morality. Saying our morality is "superior" is speciesism.

re-read what i said.

I didn't say our morality was superior, I said our minds are far superior.




What if I respect the the natural rights of Gentiles but not Jews?
Then you don't understand or respect the concept of individual human rights, just gentiles. Sounds like something that is pretty common amongst many organized religions :o


This proves my point:
no offense, but not even close.



under a naturalist view, rights are a matter of preference; of taste.


I would prefer not to be killed, therefore i wont kill others due to my preference to have my own rights respected. If i go around killing others, i deserve to get killed. Let's see if this quote rings a bell. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Jesus.

Rights are inherent in our nature. George Bush invading Iraq was no more justified than Hitler invading poland. One is a Christian, one is an atheist. Who gives a shit? neither of them respect individual rights of man, which is all that really matters. Not the belief in a supernatural lord, that can't be proven or disproven. It's an irrelevant point to the discussion of rights.


They evolved to believe that rape is not immoral.

Than they don't respect the individual rights of their own race.

Rape:

"sexual intercourse forced on a person" - Merriam-Websters

Whoever is getting raped, is not voluntarily offering their body for sex, therefore it's immoral.

Many humans used to believe slavery is not immoral, and was just the way of life, but we're learning.



If that alien race visited planet earth--and these aliens were as superior to us, as we are to pigs (or wolves)--and proceeded to rape humans, or harvest them for food, we would have no justification in saying that this was wrong.
You would have justification, you just can't do anything about it.

It's like my wolf example. IF you're naked in the woods with no technology, those hungry wolves are going to eat your ass. Do you still have rights? yes, but the wolves won't respect them.

I would fight to the death, to defend individual humans from an invading alien force, because my morality comes from the natural rights of man, not the unprovable supernatural rights of a supreme being. I'm also willing to respect the natural rights of an alien force, if they respect mine. I would be more than happy to interact and converse with them, so long as they are not forceful upon me.



We would say that is evil, they would say it's good, and neither would be right.

It sounds like we would essentially be farmed. This is no different than fighting off an invasion from a foreign nation.

Humans would have to fight for their rights, if some kind of force has the intent to take them away. Evil is subjective to your nature (evil is generally viewed as the violation of natural rights), so clearly the aliens would be evil to the humans, if they are raping and killing. Obviously, the aliens must be gods creatures too if he created everything, therefore why would God create something that can destroy the human race and is clearly superior in terms of intelligence?




That's cool, but I personally don't have any morality. I like torturing animals, and sadism, and cruelty.
That's because you don't understand natural rights, you understand the fantasy of supernatural rights from an unprovable source. My source is my nature.


If I really felt this way, there would be no objective difference between you and me.
That's retarded. I respect the natural rights of animals, i just don't give them priority over humans.

Morality is subjective to your nature, not objective. Wolves have a totally different sense of morality than you do, because they have a very different nature. They don't respect human morality, just as you likely don't respect Wolf morality. Morality is not objective or universal, it is subjective to your nature.



It would be the same as preferring McDonald's instead of Burger King.

Doesn't even make sense.



Your misunderstanding my argument.
And i don't think you're even grasping mine.


I argue that objective and absolute morality does exist, and their is an absolute truth regardless of what differing religions say.
Right, because your religion is the correct one, and the other methods of supernatural worship, are wrong. :rolleyes:

Morality is subjective to your nature. Cows probably don't find the mass slaughters very moral, because it's not very respectful to their nature. Humans don't find oppression moral, because it's not respectful to their nature.

You are born with a right to life. You have a right to it, and so do all forms of life. If morality was truly objective, than it would not be limited to humans. I accept individual human morality as it is subjective to my human nature, not a universal objective morality for everything.



An atheist can't make that claim. To him, morality is relative to how we evolved, to each culture, and each person.

I'm not an atheist, so your point is moot. I think atheists tend to be just as wrong a Christians when they talk about how certain they are about "no god". I just don't accept the certainty behind such an unprovable concept. I believe the concept of natural individual rights is independent from your "theory of life" or religion, or a mystical being.

I reject the certainty of a supernatural being in charge of everything, not the possibility of one. Rights are natural and inherent in our nature,

ClayTrainor
10-04-2009, 12:04 PM
No. You don't need to be a theist to know that you should love your children instead of torturing them. I believe that in some ways God has "hardwired" morality into our brains

Than why do so many people support a woman's right to Abortions? Why are they not hardwired?

Genetics are the memory to operate your biological machinery. Morality is memory that must be learned through reason, and passed on to your youth. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Jesus

Sheepdog11
10-04-2009, 12:46 PM
William Lane Craig lays out this argument here:

That video is nothing more than a 5 minute appeal to consequence fallacy. William Lane Craig spends far too much time on his perceived ill consequences of subjective morality (nobody can say anything is objectively wrong!) and far too little time actually trying to show that objective morality exists. He basically says "we all know it exists deep down inside"... is that really his argument? :eek:

I don't see what the big hangup over objective standards is. I don't see why they are necessary, nor obvious for the world to appear the way it does today.

emazur
10-04-2009, 01:49 PM
Rights are inherent in our nature. George Bush invading Iraq was no more justified than Hitler invading poland. One is a Christian, one is an atheist. Who gives a shit? neither of them respect individual rights of man, which is all that really matters. Not the belief in a supernatural lord, that can't be proven or disproven. It's an irrelevant point to the discussion of rights.

You might be surprised about a few things about Hitler - I'd suggest reading this whole article but here are some key points:
http://proudatheists.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/why-do-they-still-insist-hitler-was-an-atheist/

1. Adolf Hitler was raised and baptized as a Roman Catholic in the midst of a Catholic family. He also served as an alter boy in the Catholic church.

2. Hitler wrote in his book, Mein Kampf: “. . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.” He made essentially the same claim in a speech before the Reichstag in 1938.

3. In 1941 Hitler told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” In fact, Hitler was never excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and Mein Kampf was not placed on the Church’s Index of Forbidden Books. Yes, the Catholic church supported the Nazi movement and the killing of millions of Jews. There probably were an undisclosed/unknown amount of atheists killed also.

4. Regarding atheism, Hitler specifically opposed it in a 1933 speech in Berlin: “We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

I'll agree with you that it doesn't matter if a killer is a Christian or an atheist, but it does matter if the Christian uses his religion as a justification for killing. It matters to me, anyway.



Many humans used to believe slavery is not immoral, and was just the way of life, but we're learning.

Did you know that the South used the bible as justification for slavery? Here are a few excerpts from my history book, "The American Past" Second Edition by Joseph Conlin:

"The proslavery argument included religious, historical, cultural, and social proofs. The Bible, the positive-good theorists argued, sanctioned slavery. Not only did the ancient Hebrews own slaves with God's blessing, but Christ had told a servant who wanted to be his disciple to return to his master and practice Christianity as a slave"
321

The presence of free blacks presented a problem for slaveowners. One of the most effective means of controlling the slaves was to convince them that God and nature intended them to be slaves because of their race, and that they should be thankful to be under the care of their masters. But if slaves saw free blacks prospering, the argument fell flat. Slaveowners also thought that free blacks were likely to stir up discontent among slaves, and they were probably right.

Religion could be an effective means of control, and careful masters paid close attention to the kind of preaching their property heard. Some owners took their slaves to their own churches where the minister was expected to deliver a sermon now and then based on biblical stories such as that of Hagar: "the angel of the Lord said unto her, return to Thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands." Other masters permitted the blacks, who preferred an emotional Christianity enhanced with vestiges of their African past, to have preachers of their own race. but those often eloquent men were instructed - specifically or indirectly - to steer clear of any topics that might cast doubt on the justice of slavery. Some toed the line. Others developed coded language and song by which they conveyed their protest
324

RACISM IN THE BIBLE
Defenders of slavery were hard pressed when abolitionists quoted the Bible on the equality of all men and women before God. A few went so far as to answer that blacks were a different species from whites, even though it was known that mating between species produced sterile offspring and the children of mixed parents in the South were both numerous and fertile.
Southerners were more comfortable when they went to the Bible. They quoted the story of Noah's son Ham, who had humiliated his father and was therefore cursed when Noah said, "a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." Blacks were human beings, proslavery southerners agreed, but their race was "the mark of Ham." As Ham's descendants, they were doomed by God to be (borrowing from another source) "hewers of wood and drawers of water."
334

Ian A.
10-04-2009, 02:04 PM
First of all, i'm not an atheist.
I never said you were. But it is logically impossible to not believe in God, and at the same time say that objective morality exists.



All of the above are Christians. Clearly the belief in ancient texts and a supernatural being does not justifiy their view of morality.

Exactly! Each human being has a subjective view of what is good and what is evil. But no matter what each person thinks, objective morality exists.

..........

Hey CT, your a cool guy and I wanna debate this further but I'm really sick. Maybe some other time. :o BUT......



William Lane Craig spends far too much time on his perceived ill consequences of subjective morality (nobody can say anything is objectively wrong!) and far too little time actually trying to show that objective morality exists.

I read some of Dr. Craig's work and he does acknowledge that proving objective morality does exist is a lot harder, but he adds that very few of his opponents argue that particular point.

Sheepdog11
10-04-2009, 02:15 PM
I read some of Dr. Craig's work and he does acknowledge that proving objective morality does exist is a lot harder, but he adds that very few of his opponents argue that particular point.

And I'm disappointed with most of his opponents. :p But the guy truly is an amazing debater, whether you agree with him or not.

Deborah K
10-04-2009, 02:40 PM
I'd prefer "Do not do unto others, as you would not have them do unto you". "Do unto others" presumes you know what the other person wants, or the other person presumes what you want. And from there it easily transforms into doing unto you what you should want. That's how we wind up with things like government "education" and healthcare.

I tend to think what is meant by this commandment is that we should treat others(individually - not collectively) as we would like to be treated- with respect. Respect is not subjective.

heavenlyboy34
10-04-2009, 02:51 PM
I never said you were. But it is logically impossible to not believe in God, and at the same time say that objective morality exists.



I would argue that in the absence of a God, objective morality is determined by who has the most physical force on his side. (as a side note, In an anarchist society, morality is an individual trait, and individuals reconcile their different moral systems through contractual agreements:cool:)

ClayTrainor
10-04-2009, 02:52 PM
..........

Hey CT, your a cool guy and I wanna debate this further but I'm really sick. Maybe some other time. :o BUT......


You as well man. Get feeling better :)

emazur
10-04-2009, 03:34 PM
I tend to think what is meant by this commandment is that we should treat others(individually - not collectively) as we would like to be treated- with respect. Respect is not subjective.

Not so sure about that. For instance, let's suppose a man and a woman (who are strangers) are exiting a building, and the man holds open the door for the woman on the way out. He may think he is just showing respect to a lady, but an independent woman might find such an act to be insulting or even sexist.

Deborah K
10-04-2009, 04:17 PM
Not so sure about that. For instance, let's suppose a man and a woman (who are strangers) are exiting a building, and the man holds open the door for the woman on the way out. He may think he is just showing respect to a lady, but an independent woman might find such an act to be insulting or even sexist.

That is not my definition of an independent woman. A woman who gets angry over that is a misguided feminazi. I say that if a feminazi gets indignant over door opening, then the man should smile and politely say that he holds the door open for any human, if he is in the position to do so.

I understand your point about respect being subjective, but I still stand by my interpretation of that commandment.

LDA
10-08-2009, 10:26 AM
The concept of liberty exists, whether you believe in God or not. I haven't seen any proof that God somehow "bestowed" rights upon us, or anything like that. The concept of liberty and rights were developed by humans, for humans. To say that we "wouldn't have liberty" with or without God is a totally useless statement, because the existence of a supreme being cannot be verified, and no principles can be derived from assuming its existence, because we know nothing about it.

ClayTrainor
10-08-2009, 10:38 AM
The concept of liberty exists, whether you believe in God or not. I haven't seen any proof that God somehow "bestowed" rights upon us, or anything like that. The concept of liberty and rights were developed by humans, for humans. To say that we "wouldn't have liberty" with or without God is a totally useless statement, because the existence of a supreme being cannot be verified, and no principles can be derived from assuming its existence, because we know nothing about it.

Exactly!

a supernatural being, as explained in ancient texts written by men, can neither be proven or disproven objectively and is irrelevant to the topic of natural rights. Morality must be defined by our nature, which is that we are animals with the right to life. "Do unto others..." is a good philosophy to live by, under our reason.

I don't believe anybody is in control, and that's the real beauty of it. It just is, and always will be, and we are it.

"From my rotting body, flowers shall grow and I am in them and that is eternity." ~Edvard Munch