Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Theist were/are strong proponents of eugenics, as well.
And then there are theist and atheist that don't support eugenics.
The word "eugenics" means different things to different people. I'm not sure I've ever heard someone imply it was synonymous with murder before, though that could be one type of eugenics.
There were lots of people, lots of theist, who supported eugenics. It was active policy of the United States as well as many other Christian nations for many decades. The person most closely associated with eugenics is adolf hitler, but he was a theist not an atheist.
You will have to be more specific about both what makes you think atheist support euginics, and what type of euginics you have in mind if you would like for me to respond.
You will have to be more specific about both what makes you think atheist support euginics, and what type of euginics you have in mind if you would like for me to respond.
Can you please explain to me how a law allowing for legal abortion is imposing atheism on you or anyone else?
I would be more than happy to explain. However, before I'm ABLE to do that we need to get the law and imposition thing straight - if possible.
First, you affirm that all law is imposition. Now you appear to be saying that only SOME laws are imposition.
If those that seek to establish a law are not seeking to impose, why would they even bother to make a law in the first place?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Think whatever you like. The reason I responded affirmatively in my original post is because I didn't take the time to fully consider your hypothetical scenario. Again, please explain to me what secular laws are imposing atheism on you and how.
First, you would need to logically explain how it is possible for ANY law not to equate to imposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Again, being an R or a D is neither a guarantee, nor exclusion, of secular law making. If you believe it is, please explain.
I never asserted that it was a "guarantee." I do believe I made the point, which you readily agreed to, that in REALITY (the common everyday business of politics) these off-setting ideologies (dems and repubs) have direct impact on who gets appointed to be a SCOTUS justice. That's all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
We should logically conclude whatever evaluation of the legislation imposed leads us to believe. Again, I'll say that my position that secular laws do not NECESSARILY equate to imposing an atheistic world view. If you disagree, please explain why and how it does.
In my hypothetical, it most certainly would equate to imposition of the atheistic world view.
This is all a bit off the specific point we were discussing with respect to the APPLICATION of a world view to everyday life. You've acknowledged that God has no impact with respect to your everyday decision making processes. Again, with respect to actual APPLICATION of a world view, it can logically only be a choice between the God view (theism) and the non-God view (atheism). What one happens to claim as a personal world view matters not with respect to the actual application. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I have no problem agreeing that morality is absolutely a major component of a world view. However, it is still only part of the whole, as you defined above. As such, I believe that there is significant enough difference to justify separating atheist and agnostic world views.
Again, with respect to actual practical APPLICATION, there are only two logical choices. Whenever a moral decision is necessitated in everyday life, one will either choose to include God or they will choose to exclude God. You've already affirmed that God isn't included in your decision making process. For example, I could claim to be a Christian, but if all my everyday decisions exclude Christian principles (God) then, logically, I would in fact be practicing the non-God (atheist) world view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Has a Justice ever been impeached? I have no idea...
I don't know either. My major point is to say that SCOTUS justices fall far short of divinity. They CAN (empasis on CAN) be fired.
There are ceremonial laws that carry no imposition, for example the designation of a state flower, or dedicating a certain day in honor of a fallen local soldier.
A law such as the freedom of the press is not a imposition, unless you count telling the government that it can't do certain things as an imposition.
There are many other laws that aren't aren't an imposition, at least in most normal senses of the word.
I would be more than happy to explain. However, before I'm ABLE to do that we need to get the law and imposition thing straight - if possible.
That's fine by me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
First, you affirm that all law is imposition. Now you appear to be saying that only SOME laws are imposition.
Nope. That's not at all what I said. Please re-read my post. I said that a law allowing legal abortion is not an imposition of atheism - not that it isn't an imposition of *anything*.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
If those that seek to establish a law are not seeking to impose, why would they even bother to make a law in the first place?
See above. You are misrepresenting my position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
First, you would need to logically explain how it is possible for ANY law not to equate to imposition.
Explained above. Now, can you explain how it is an imposition of atheism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I never asserted that it was a "guarantee." I do believe I made the point, which you readily agreed to, that in REALITY (the common everyday business of politics) these off-setting ideologies (dems and repubs) have direct impact on who gets appointed to be a SCOTUS justice. That's all.
But this thread is about secular law-making. If you're not trying to state that political affiliation effects secular law-making, I'm not sure why we're discussing it at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
In my hypothetical, it most certainly would equate to imposition of the atheistic world view.
So you keep saying. Please explain how.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
This is all a bit off the specific point we were discussing with respect to the APPLICATION of a world view to everyday life. You've acknowledged that God has no impact with respect to your everyday decision making processes. Again, with respect to actual APPLICATION of a world view, it can logically only be a choice between the God view (theism) and the non-God view (atheism). What one happens to claim as a personal world view matters not with respect to the actual application. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
*My* world view is not what we're discussing. We're discussing how my world view could possibly effect others. Please give me an example of a secular law that you feel imposes the atheistic world view on you, and in what ways specifically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
Again, with respect to actual practical APPLICATION, there are only two logical choices. Whenever a moral decision is necessitated in everyday life, one will either choose to include God or they will choose to exclude God. You've already affirmed that God isn't included in your decision making process. For example, I could claim to be a Christian, but if all my everyday decisions exclude Christian principles (God) then, logically, I would in fact be practicing the non-God (atheist) world view.
Great. In what way does that force other people to conform to that same world view? Both you and Mr. Greenspan have made that claim in this thread, yet neither of you has offered up any evidence or examples...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
I don't know either. My major point is to say that SCOTUS justices fall far short of divinity. They CAN (empasis on CAN) be fired.
I never claimed they couldn't be, or that they were in any way divine. You are misrepresenting my position again. I simply said that it was HIGHLY unlikely that popular vote could ever effect a change of the SCOTUS Justices.
Last edited by hooligan; 09-15-2011 at 08:06 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
