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.
[snip]In the future I will only respond to new lines of discussion.
Drat. I get a kick out of following how often you two can repeat the same things using slightly different words as if that would make a difference. On the plus side, I guess now I can follow how often new lines of discussion can be repeated.
I would assume they would be "the vast majority of theists in this country" that was being discussed.
As such, I would agree. I think the majority of theists in this country DO NOT observe the Sabbath as it is detailed in the 10 commandments.
Thanks, sorry I didn't see the follow up.
Many Christians have a real difficulty in coming up with a coherent way to interpret the Old Testiment. Even with the 10 commandments, most Christians don't believe all of them are applicable in modern times. But they have difficulty explaining why some of the old testiment should be followed and other parts shouldn't, and the result is that it subjects themselves to the charge of bigotry.
This is an issue Jews aren't normally troubled with.
I would assume they would be "the vast majority of theists in this country" that was being discussed.
As such, I would agree. I think the majority of theists in this country DO NOT observe the Sabbath as it is detailed in the 10 commandments.
According to the Bible, or, the Jewish Bible, if you prefer, the vast majority of theists are only bound by the 7 Noahide Commandments, and there is no mention of the Shabbat in those commandments:
1) to establish courts of justice;
2) not to commit blasphemy;
3) not to commit idolatry;
4) not to commit incest and adultery;
5) not to commit bloodshed;
6) not to commit robbery; and
7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal.
This is an issue Jews aren't normally troubled with.
Jews are bound by the 613 Mitzvot (Commandments), with the 10 Utterances (what Gentiles refer to as the 10 Commandments) understood to be the chapter headings under which the other 603 Mitzvot (Commandments) are organized.
Hello all,
Something I hear alot on here { and something I have said myself } Is that Atheists and unbelievers have a real problem with religious folk of any type trying to impose laws based on their religious beliefs into society. Myself, being an unbeliever of any organized religion, also thought this way.
Though, Not to long ago I thought about this for a little while and I now see what I percieve to have been an error in my way of thinking The following quote is what inspired me to start this thread.
Now the question I would like to pose to you is, wouldn't this be the same as a democrat saying to a republican "as a democrat, I don't really care if you are a republican until you choose to attempt to impose what you believe into society" ???
Or for instance, wouldn't it be the same as someone who was pro-life telling somone who was pr-choice that "they didnt care what they believe"......etc. etc. ????
Do you think this is the same? If no, then how not? If yes, than wouldn't this defeat the purpose of a democracy where majority rules? Lastly. isn''t it only fair that the religious get to impose their ideas into our laws if they infact have a mojority?
I think it all depends on the law. If the law states that we all must turn to the east at this time of day or be punished, or that women must cover their bodies, or they outlaw anything that goes against their doctrine, they no they shouldn't be allowed to impose such laws.
According to the Bible, or, the Jewish Bible, if you prefer, the vast majority of theists are only bound by the 7 Noahide Commandments, and there is no mention of the Shabbat in those commandments:
1) to establish courts of justice;
2) not to commit blasphemy;
3) not to commit idolatry;
4) not to commit incest and adultery;
5) not to commit bloodshed;
6) not to commit robbery; and
7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal.
Interesting. My Methodist church growing up taught all 10 and didn't give the impression that the list was negotiable.
No, it's really not straight-forward logic, at all. The reason it isn't is because we're talking about morality, specifically. *IF* one of the two options you're proposing don't necessarily share a common morality, such as the "atheistic world view" group, than you cannot claim an imposition of that moral code, because it doesn't exist.
Yes, it is straight-forward logic.
Assertion: "In any legitimate society laws (imposition) are necessitated. Some form of morality will be imposed."
There is nothing in your response that details why this statement is illogical or unreasonable.
Assertion: "With respect to God and objective moral values, this imposed morality *MUST* either include or exclude God."
Again, there's nothing in your response to refute the logic of this statement. Either God and objective moral values exist or they do not exist. Logically, it's one or the other. Logically, the imposed morality will agree with God or it will disagree.
Your opinion isn't going to change the logical implications. If you are unable or unwilling to provide a reasoned refutation, it seems to me that the only honest thing for you to do is to concede the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
No, we do not. Are you certain there are no other theists in this entire world who don't view abortion as immoral? If a theist has the moral position that abortion is OK, then it cannot be an atheistic world view. I'm pretty certain we've covered this before in some of our earlier exchanges.
What one *claims as a title (atheist/theist)* is completely beside the point. If there is a God and this God has communicated that murder (abortion) is prohibited, then, logically, any contrary view, regardless of whether it's put forward by someone claiming to be an atheist or theist, would fall into the category of the non-God i.e., anti-God i.e., atheist view. It would either agree with God or it would disagree.
It's really not that complicated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Not after I was dead, it wouldn't be. Why are you asking ridiculous questions?
What in the world are you talking about here? I'm just asking a very simple question:
If the state murdered you, would you consider it to be an imposition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
A miscarriage of justice? Absolutely. An imposition of religion? Not necessarily. I'm certain there are some non-religious folks out there that think gay marriage is "icky" and would vote against it simply for that reason.
That wasn't my question. I asked why you would *feel* that such a sequence of events would be wrong. Why do you feel it would be wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Nope. It is common ground, to be sure, but to label it as the "theistic" morality would be to assume that this morality was the sole proprety of theists, or at the very least that it originated with theists, and I see no evidence of that.
Any evidence you choose to affirm or ignore is inconsequential. If God exists and this God is opposed to abortion, any contrary view automatically falls to the contrary view - that is, the non-God (atheist) view. If it's true (not lawful but TRUE) that abortion is in fact murder, and God opposes murder (abortion) then the contrary view is automatically the non-God view (atheism).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Common ground is not the imposition of theism. What do you find so complicated about it?
If God and objective morals exist, "common ground" isn't going to make them disappear. "Common ground" is totally irrelevant with respect to the point in contention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Correct. I believe the Dredd Scott decision was based on ignorant racism and horribly misplaced values of what a human being is worth. I do not see it as being based on any specific religion, however.
If God exists and is opposed to slavery, Dred Scott represented the non-God (atheist) perspective. Plain and simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
The God of the OT certainly seemed to, yep.
The fact that God allowed slavery to occur does not equate to God agreeing with it. I've noted that we live in a sinful world. The God I believe in allows sin to occur. It's not the same as causing it or agreeing with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Do you have any evidence that this ultimate justice exists? I can easily prove that our version of justice, as is detailed by our contry's criminal code, exists.
I would be happy to explain why it's REASONABLE to believe in ultimate justice. This would all fall in with arguments for God's existence - quite off topic in here.
Again, you asked me to explain and I did so. I didn't expect you to agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
This presupposes the existence of at least one god. I see no evidence of that. So, we'll agree to disagree.
Fine. You asked, I answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
How do you know this would be an end to our Constitution and representative republic? Is it not possible for the Constitution to be changed? I see no mutual exclusion as you have stated above.
Again, you asked me to explain, so I explained.
By the way, it isn't just me. People like Tocqueville and most of the Founders (if not all) are also in agreement. That's why they designed our government to be the way it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
And we're right back to the heart of our differences, aren't we? You assume that gods exist and so you believe in objective morals that he/she/it/they have handed down. I see no evidence for gods, so I believe these "objective" morals are just a widely agreed upon set of rules that foster a peacable society. We can see lots of examples of differing moral codes just within out country, let alone throughout the world. If there are differing moral codes - how can there possibly be an objective morality?
We could all choose to disagree over the existence of tsunamis, would that make them disappear? Would it change the truth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Knock yourself out. I've already provided a reasonable alternative above. My answer won't change just because you've started a new thread, I promise you.
You need to understand something clearly, I'm not under any illusion that you will allow yourself to be convinced of anything other than what you've already made a determination to believe. If you choose to refuse to be persuaded, I completely understand that there's no way I can persuade you. However, I'm willing to hear whatever REASONED counter arguments you think you have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Nope, I don't think that at all. It would simply require a shared morality in order to be considered "atheist" and that simply DOES NOT EXIST.
All those who agree that abortion is morally acceptable have a "shared morality." If this morality runs counter to God's morality, then, logically, it's shared atheism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
At this point, I really don't care. I sick of discussing whether or not something YOU brought into the conversation as an example is relevant to the discussion.
Say what? YOU were the one who asked for examples. I comply and you turn around and blame me? That's rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Correct, I don't believe in objective morality. However, it sounds like what you are suggesting in this quoted text is that *IF* gods exist then he/she/it/they *MUST* have handed down a moral code for us to live by. First you would need to prove gods exist, THEN you would need to prove a moral code was handed down from this creative intelligence. Two very separate and not mutually inclusive things. No?
Your skepticism does nothing to explain how it would be reasonable to conclude that it's possible to have moral absolutes in the absence of a Transcendent Law Giver (God).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Atheists CAN believe that abortion is murder, too. Therefore the existence of legal abortion CANNOT be assigned an atheistic bent.
I agree with the former. The latter amounts to a non sequitur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Yes, you have and I agree. It IS imposition. It just doesn't equate to the imposition of atheism.
Logically, it HAS to be one or the other.
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.
