Freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion

[dmcoco84 4]

Ok... whatever.

Nightingale... your thoughts? Since you are agnostic and a lawyer... and I'm sure you'll use reason and actually read the information before posting...



D

[quade 3]

Quote

Ok... whatever.

I see, so you're admitting the entire idea behind "Natural Law" is a religious sham? You can't support it with anything?

What you're saying is, "Thing B" exists because of powers invested by "Thing A." You can't prove "Thing A" exists, but you have to believe it does so it can prove "Thing B" does.

That's just silly.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Blackstone confirmed the wisdom of the Founders by stating that it is the only reliable basis for a stable society and a system of justice.

Did he now? And what exactly is that worth, unless you know what argument he employed to support his statement?

Then, let's see - my word, you really do know how to use a lot of words to say very little, don't you? Finally at the very end something of interest;

Quote

The concept of UNALIENABLE RIGHTS is based on Natural Law.
The concept of UNALIENABLE DUTIES is based on Natural Law.
The concept of HABEAS CORPUS is based on Natural Law.
The concept of LIMITED GOVERNMENT is based on Natural Law.
The concept of SPERATION OF POWERS is based on Natural Law.
The concept of CHECKS AND BALANCES to correct abuses by peaceful means is based on Natural Law.
The right of SELF-PRESERVATION is based on Natural Law.
The right to CONTRACT is based on Natural Law.
The concept of JUSTICE BY REPARATIONS or paying for damages is based on Natural Law.
The right to BEAR ARMS is based on Natural Law.
The principle of NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION is based on Natural Law.

That's nice. So what is this 'natural law' that these principles are based on? Where do I go to check that you haven't just made that up? Where can I see "no taxation without representation" enshrined in nature?

This is not a reasoned argument, this is just you saying things. You have no support, you have only assertions.


And you still haven't even attempted to address the contradictions I've pointed out to you - how is it that the only functional governments derive their power from God, when you say that their laws need to be concieved and enforced by men, just like every other form of government out there?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bolas 5]

The best governments use logic based reasoning to come up with their laws which is something sadly abandoned long ago in the US in the quest for power.

Were one to start a new government embracing using logic and scientifically provable facts they'd be well ahead of the game.
While the tenents of Natural Law are logical, saying they are based upon the word of improvable being(s) does little for their credibility.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,400]

>The best governments use logic based reasoning to come up with their laws . . .

That's a part of any potential system of government, but cannot be the only basis for laws. As an example, slavery makes good economic sense when cheap labor is needed - but is morally repugnant so we don't use it any more.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>The best governments use logic based reasoning to come up with their laws . . .

That's a part of any potential system of government, but cannot be the only basis for laws. As an example, slavery makes good economic sense when cheap labor is needed - but is morally repugnant so we don't use it any more.

It makes economic sense but the idea of one human having the ability to (non consensually )own another human is actually illogical as well as immoral.

Economic sense may sometimes equal logic, but not always.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[quade 3]

Quote

. . . to (non consensually )own another human is actually illogical as well as immoral.

Wait! How's that possible?

Isn't one of the ideas backed by various religious groups that morality is a result of religion? How can slavery be immoral when so many religions have allowed it over the course of history?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,400]

>but the idea of one human having the ability to (non consensually
>Wink)own another human is actually illogical as well as immoral.

I understand the immoral part, but why is it illogical? It has been proven to work, it is not self-contradictory, and it has a rational basis in economic theory.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>but the idea of one human having the ability to (non consensually
>Wink)own another human is actually illogical as well as immoral.

I understand the immoral part, but why is it illogical? It has been proven to work, it is not self-contradictory, and it has a rational basis in economic theory.

Because it is based solely on stolen goods. What gave the people originally selling the slaves the right to sell other people without their consent?

One of the basises of logical thought is consistency. How would the person feel the activity/behavior they were doing, was done to them?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

. . . to (non consensually )own another human is actually illogical as well as immoral.

Wait! How's that possible?

Isn't one of the ideas backed by various religious groups that morality is a result of religion? How can slavery be immoral when so many religions have allowed it over the course of history?

Just as making economic sense doesn't mean it's logical, being an activity supported in the name of some diety doesn't make it moral.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[quade 3]

Quote

One of the basises of logical thought is consistency. How would the person feel the activity/behavior they were doing, was done to them?

Pretty sure you're confusing logic with emotions. The two don't always have anything to do with one another and may be simply considered as overlapping sets.

With a very small overlap. Really tiny. Itty-bitty.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,400]

>Because it is based solely on stolen goods.

Well, at a fundamental level, so is mining. But there is nothing logically inconsistent with the thought that you can own the minerals in a mine (or even the entire mine) - just as there is nothing logically inconsistent with the thought that you can own someone's labor, or someone's life.

Now, you may make a morality argument on basic human rights, and I would agree wholeheartedly. But that is a morality argument, not a logical one.

>One of the basises of logical thought is consistency. How would the
>person feel the activity/behavior they were doing, was done to them?

Self-consistency is actually one of the hallmarks of logic, but feelings are generally the opposite of logic. The two are often contradictory. It might be logical to kill someone to prevent the spread of disease, but logic does not always 'feel' right, so we usually do not do such things.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

The best governments use logic based reasoning to come up with their laws which is something sadly abandoned long ago in the US in the quest for power.

Were one to start a new government embracing using logic and scientifically provable facts they'd be well ahead of the game.

.

Nonsense, they would never get elected. Logic and science are highly devalued commodities in our society.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Because it is based solely on stolen goods.

Well, at a fundamental level, so is mining. But there is nothing logically inconsistent with the thought that you can own the minerals in a mine (or even the entire mine) - just as there is nothing logically inconsistent with the thought that you can own someone's labor, or someone's life.

Now, you may make a morality argument on basic human rights, and I would agree wholeheartedly. But that is a morality argument, not a logical one.

The key is consent. Only humans can consent or not consent.

Quote

>One of the basises of logical thought is consistency. How would the
>person feel the activity/behavior they were doing, was done to them?

Self-consistency is actually one of the hallmarks of logic, but feelings are generally the opposite of logic. The two are often contradictory. It might be logical to kill someone to prevent the spread of disease, but logic does not always 'feel' right, so we usually do not do such things.

Which is where the consistency of the logic used has to be firmly established and without exception.

Ex: Anyone willing to kill to save others would also have to be willing to allow themselves to be killed to save others. Any exceptions based solely on emotions would nullify the consistency and effectiveness.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

The best governments use logic based reasoning to come up with their laws which is something sadly abandoned long ago in the US in the quest for power.

Were one to start a new government embracing using logic and scientifically provable facts they'd be well ahead of the game.

.

Nonsense, they would never get elected. Logic and science are highly devalued commodities in our society.

In this one true. However when it finally self destructs*, it may not be the case if they don't want to repeat the same mistakes.

* Chapter 13 or 11, foreclosure

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

. . . to (non consensually )own another human is actually illogical as well as immoral.

Wait! How's that possible?

Isn't one of the ideas backed by various religious groups that morality is a result of religion? How can slavery be immoral when so many religions have allowed it over the course of history?

Simple - eventually you would have to cut thier toes off so they couldn't try to run away any more, and that makes a terrible mess, and we are just tired of cleaning it up.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[dmcoco84 4]

Quote

“The way you've wanted to define it.”

I wish those were my words...

I can no more “prove” there is a creator, a God... than you can “prove” there isn’t one.

You today, cannot prove there is no God... and neither could Einstein, which is why he was agnostic. As said above, he believed in a God of design... but not of one who could divinely intervene into daily life.

In that line of thinking alone... Natural Law applies.

Quote

Prove to me "the creator" somehow made these ideas known to man and that man didn't just make them up all on his own.

See... you are stuck in a, religious, mindset... that, like with Moses, God has to manifest and present the information to humans... not so with REASON, as understood by Cicero and our Founding Fathers.

Quote

I see, so you're admitting the entire idea behind "Natural Law" is a religious sham? You can't support it with anything?

How does my response lead to me be admitting NL is a religious sham...?

Which religion would that be exactly?

Sigh... a religious sham... are you serious?

D

[dmcoco84 4]

Yea, true, go ahead and just disregard that entire line about Blackstone. I was copying right from the book, word for word... that came in the preceding introductions, but is not really important. The point can be understood without it.

Yup... the rest of it too, right from the book. Looks a lot better organized differently... can’t really do that on here... oh well. Oh but it’s very important.

Quote

Where can I see....enshrined in nature?

Ok... the problem I see is, you don’t understand what a right is.

Lets refresh. If your rights do not come from God, if there is no god... rights come from government. Meaning, regardless of any governmental system... you have no true rights, because those who determine rights, can also take rights away.

What is the backing, the strength, of a piece of paper listing rights signed by MEN... without God?

Rights... come from our humanity... they come from our existence.

So here... right off the bat! Healthcare... is not a right. Healthcare is a good. Like shoes, a necktie, or a gym membership. Healthcare is something that is paid for by an individual or on behalf of an individual.

The pursuit of truth, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom to worship or not to worship, the right to privacy, the right to be left alone... from the government as well as the bad people... these are rights that come from our humanity... they come from God.

Benjamin Franklin had terrible problems with kidney stones, and he took opium for the pain. Why didn’t he want healthcare in the Constitution... because it isn’t a right. He actually raised money himself and opened a free hospital... private charity... and he was told he would fail. He had the right to try... and the right to fail... but he didn’t fail.

All Men Are Created Equal... YES... but they don’t stay equal. We are equal at birth in our rights from God... all men are not created “monetarily” equal.

We are born equal... but we don’t end equal.

Quote

And you still haven't even attempted to address the contradictions I've pointed out to you

Actually, I have, its all right there... you just need to read critically. What I posted is the same reasoning that Thomas Jefferson used... I’ll be glad to post my sources, once I get to, the “religion of America.” Until then, do you need me to break it down for you into simpler terms? And I’m not being a smart ass. Do you need me to explain how the laws of the Republic were determined through our rights under Natural Law? Like Murder...


Let me say this also... on a scale of 0 to 180 degrees... 0 being what the Founders set up for us, what they understood and wanted for America... and 180 is the complete opposite.

We are about 150 degrees off... they would not recognize this government.

For one... Case Law, precedents... NEVER! Leave that to Europe. That started in the 1920’s and came out of Harvard. The Founding Fathers never wanted law to be based on other’s interpretation of what the constitution says...

All Laws Should Be Measure Against the Constitution... Against God’s Law.

D

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

The pursuit of truth, freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom to worship or not to worship, the right to privacy, the right to be left alone... from the government as well as the bad people... these are rights that come from our humanity... they come from God.

It would seem that some other natural rights would be the freedom to use drugs, the freedom to be nude, freedom to commit suicide, basically freedom to do anything to your own body?

Also, when you say that you have the right to be left alone from bad people, whose responsibility is it to protect you from the bad people? And who decides what "bad" means?

[billvon 2,400]

>Ex: Anyone willing to kill to save others would also have to be willing
>to allow themselves to be killed to save others.

Not at all. It would be logical, for example, for a pilot to kill a bunch of people by throwing them out of a plane, and refuse to die the same way, if a) it was necessary to save the remainder (i.e. they do not have enough fuel to reach safety with that weight) and b) he was needed to fly the plane. (And, of course, assuming that the goal was to land safely.) It would also be logical for a CEO to use slaves if the goal was to maximize profit for his shareholders, even if he himself would not be willing to do that job - again, assuming the goal is maximum profit, and owning slaves helped him reach that goal.

Is that "fair?" Does that "feel right?" No. But that's the difference between feelings and logic. Logic does not serve a moral master - it serves whatever the stated goal is. It is merely a tool, no more or less moral than math or physics.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Yea, true, go ahead and just disregard that entire line about Blackstone.

Why should I regard it? Is it true because he said it?

Quote

I was copying right from the book, word for word...

Woop-de-do.

Quote

Lets refresh. If your rights do not come from God, if there is no god... rights come from government. Meaning, regardless of any governmental system... you have no true rights, because those who determine rights, can also take rights away.

What is the backing, the strength, of a piece of paper listing rights signed by MEN... without God?

What is the backing and the strength of rights with God? You have flat out admitted that rights are not protected by God but by people and by governments. So why do you continue with this contradictory line about god being vital?

And the question remains - where can I see 'no taxation without representation' enshrined in nature? Where can I see that being handed down from god?

Quote

Actually, I have, its all right there... you just need to read critically.

No, I would have to read unquestioningly. If you actually looked critically at your own ideas, you would start to see where the problems lie.

Quote

Lets refresh. If your rights do not come from God, if there is no god... rights come from government. Meaning, regardless of any governmental system... you have no true rights, because those who determine rights, can also take rights away...

Let me say this also... on a scale of 0 to 180 degrees... 0 being what the Founders set up for us, what they understood and wanted for America... and 180 is the complete opposite.

We are about 150 degrees off... they would not recognize this government.

So you say that the main problem with the idea of rights not coming from God is that they can be taken away by the government. But then you say that the US government is taking your rights away, even though you think the US constitution is based on rights from god. So systems where rights come from god have identical problems to systems where rights come from the people. You see your problem here, right?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Bolas 5]

Quote

>Ex: Anyone willing to kill to save others would also have to be willing
>to allow themselves to be killed to save others.

Not at all. It would be logical, for example, for a pilot to kill a bunch of people by throwing them out of a plane, and refuse to die the same way, if a) it was necessary to save the remainder (i.e. they do not have enough fuel to reach safety with that weight) and b) he was needed to fly the plane. (And, of course, assuming that the goal was to land safely.) It would also be logical for a CEO to use slaves if the goal was to maximize profit for his shareholders, even if he himself would not be willing to do that job - again, assuming the goal is maximum profit, and owning slaves helped him reach that goal.

Is that "fair?" Does that "feel right?" No. But that's the difference between feelings and logic. Logic does not serve a moral master - it serves whatever the stated goal is. It is merely a tool, no more or less moral than math or physics.

Your examples are sorta silly.

Simple logic would show that the pilot was needed for any to survive.

In the second, once again the key is consent. If those people were to actually consent to being "slaves" (working for room and board only) and whatever conditions that entails then I would have no issue with it provided that their children were not forced into it and they had a way to leave and some sort of exit compensation as well as a way to prevent said CEO from just using the people up and then dumping them on the government to take care of.

Considering those requirements that company might quickly find out that slaves don't make fiscal sense.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,400]

>Simple logic would show that the pilot was needed for any to survive.

Fair enough.

Simple logic would also show that slaves were needed for a corporation to survive in an environment where slavery was legal. The corporation that uses unpaid slaves for labor will be able to produce their product at a considerably lower cost. The company that can provide the product for a lower cost while still making a profit survives; the company that must price their product higher will die.

>In the second, once again the key is consent.

Same argument applies to the first one. If the passengers consent to getting out of the airplane, then all is well; the example becomes trivial.

However, in both cases, the moral dilemma arises when the people do NOT consent. Is it moral for the pilot to throw people out of the plane (i.e. kill them) to save the other passengers and himself? That's a murky question. But is it LOGICAL to kill some passengers to save the remainder and himself, when the alternative is certain death for everyone? Yes - if the objective is survival. At that point consent does not enter into it.

Again, if the people consent to be 'slaves' (or unpaid serfs or whatever you want to call them) then there is no moral dilemma. But that's the trivial case. The more important question is - is it moral for the business owner to enslave people against their will to save his company? Nowadays that's an easy answer - no. But is it LOGICAL to enslave people to save his company, when the alternative is certain loss of market, bankruptcy and dissolution? Yes - if the objective is survival of the company. At that point consent does not enter into it.'

I think you're confusing morality with logic. Logic gives you a result without the constraints of a moral fabric, based purely on a desired outcome. If the future health of a population is the goal, it is logical to kill off children with genetic defects as soon as they are detected. But it's not even close to moral.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

The more important question is - is it moral for the business owner to enslave people against their will to save his company? Nowadays that's an easy answer - no. But is it LOGICAL to enslave people to save his company, when the alternative is certain loss of market, bankruptcy and dissolution? Yes - if the objective is survival of the company. At that point consent does not enter into it.'

It's not a morality issue at all, it's still a consent issue.

Additionally the loss of one company in such dire straits it would need to use slave labor to survive pales in comparison to an attempt to preserve as much human life as possible.

Quote

If the future health of a population is the goal, it is logical to kill off children with genetic defects as soon as they are detected. But it's not even close to moral.

Agreed but allowing them to possibly reproduce isn't best for the future population either.

Once again the key factor is consistent treatment for all as well as consent. Add that caveat and the majority of the moral quandries quickly disappear.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Freedom OF religion means freedom FROM religion

No it doesn't...suck it up cupcake.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...