Please !

[Bryan]

Bryan, Bryan, Bryan......... What the f_ _ _ do you get from these endless, mindless bloviations with an obsessive, compulsive lunatic like Paul.  Of course, I know nothing about you, but my guess is you desperately need a girlfriend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Obviously you're way too smart for me.

Cya.

[Guest Paul]

You're hilarious.

Paul:

So my question for you, Bryan is this: Do you deny a universal, human-centered ethic as the necessary foundation for a government committed to liberty and justice for all?

*

Bryan:

No, but "liberty and justice for all" as you seem to be using it is a bit of an anachronism, and I don't think you can offer any rational foundation (and, of course, "human-centered" cannot be understood to mean based on humans otherwise the idea becomes malleable and relative instead of universal) for a universal human-centered ethic from your worldview. How would you address arguments from a guy like Peter Singer (animal-rights crackpot, Princeton), for example?

You do tend to dodge my questions, don't you?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=51598

How many times will I have to answer before you'll admit that I answered it?

And how many times will you make something of me not answering questions when you do it as a matter of course?

Heh.  I "ignored it."

Great stroke for your credibility, there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, so now the question is human-centered in opposition to animal rights activism. I told you, Bryan, there are imperfections in every sytem that is offered to resolve disputes, settle rights, etc., between and among people. The fact that animals also have feelings, which ought to be accorded some respect (e.g., via anti-cruelty laws) stands outside and does not address the fundamental question of how we are going to treat and relate to each other as human beings. By human-centered I mean that human concerns are central.

That's my answer regarding the foundation for a legal system. What is yours?

[Bryan]

OK, so now the question is human-centered in opposition to animal rights activism. I told you, Bryan, there are imperfections in every sytem that is offered to resolve disputes, settle rights, etc., between and among people. The fact that animals also have feelings, which ought to be accorded some respect (e.g., via anti-cruelty laws) stands outside and does not address the fundamental question of how we are going to treat and relate to each other as human beings. By human-centered I mean that human concerns are central.

The way you describe it makes it sound completely arbitrary, like having the card game "hearts" when it could have been the card game "clubs."

Do you intend to stand pat with your description?

That's my answer regarding the foundation for a legal system. What is yours?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've already described mine. It's not so tough getting me to answer questions that are relevant, so long as the attempt to shift the burden of proof isn't too outrageous.

Mine is the same as that of the Framers, in essence. Rights are based in morality, and morality is established in god (God). Man thus has no power to alter the foundation for rights, which does not appear to be the case with your system (though your description above is so thin as to allow impressive space for elaboration).

If you agree that this is a problem for your system, I'd like to hear you address it.

If you don't think it's a problem for your system, then I'd like to know why not.

You didn't exactly bend over backwards apologizing for your faux pas, did you?

[Wok2Moons]

Rights are based in morality, and morality is established in god (God).  Man thus has no power to alter the foundation for rights, which does not appear to be the case with your system (though your description above is so thin as to allow impressive space for elaboration).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that what you meant to say, if you were being thoughtful, is that your - and certainly many others - opinion about what morality should include is established in God. That set of morals, while inclusive of many commendable views, does not represent the population as a whole, and it certainly does not represent me. There are many reasons for this.

Aids is certainly one of the most terrifying viruses of the day, and a cure is being desperately sought after. But ought we not take every step to stemming its flow in the meantime? The Vatican seems to think not. They are openly opposing the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV. People are being sent by the church into areas of the world where HIV is most dangerous and, instead of teaching about condom use, they "spread inaccurate information about contraception and sexually transmitted disease, and they withhold accurate information...Christian missionaries have been known to preach the sinfulness of condom use in villages where no other information about condoms is available." Both of these excerpts were taken from Letter to a Christian Nation, by Sam Harris, pages 33 and 34. Such ridiculous views will surely have more negative affects than good, and are morally wrong.

Another incredibly twisted view spouted by "God" is that abortion is a horrible sin and should be punished as such. This so-called "Moral" position that the church has taken is represented in El Salvador. It is now illegal for a woman to undergo an abortion in El Salvador under all circumstances, including rape, births that would threaten the lives of the mother, and incest. As if this were not enough, there are women serving prison sentences for up to 30 years for having an abortion. Does this not seem both ludicrous and obviously morally indefensible? Or is your mind so convoluted by Christianity that you think the life of a fully-grown woman is less important than that of a small bundle of cells that was achieved through a forced sexual encounter? Your logic is both contorted and damning.

So yes, I agree with you that morals and rights are connected in many ways, but only when those morals are just. And as has been proved many times, those of the church are often not so. I would say it is the right of a mother to decide whether or not to keep a child that was forced upon her, or that would threaten her life. I would also say it is a right for African citizens to be given accurate information about condom use if it could possibly save them from a horrible death. Examine your own logic for a second and stop to think. You might just realize how illogical it is.

[Strife767]

Rights are based in morality, and morality is established in god (God).

lol, okay Bryan. I so love destroying this persistent argument. All it takes is one question, and your answer doesn't even matter:

Would you be an immoral person if you didn't believe in a god?

If you answer yes, then you have shown that you are indeed an immoral person, for what else can be said of someone who is only 'being good' by lure of a reward or fear of punishment after death? Such a way of life makes one no better than people who stop stealing office supplies from their job only because a surveillance camera was installed. This is also reminiscent of the 'lip service'-esque 'faith' involved in Pascal's Wager.

If you answer no, then you have self-destructed your own argument and admitted that morality without theism is possible.

If threat of otherwordly punishment or hope for otherworldly reward is the driving force behind one's level of 'morality,' then they have exposed themselves to be quite morally deficient.

Let me ask you something: who is more moral, in your opinion? One who doesn't commit a crime because one doesn't want to risk being jailed, or one who, even in a situation where there is zero risk of being caught, doesn't commit the same crime?

[Strife767]

Another incredibly twisted view spouted by "God" is that abortion is a horrible sin and should be punished as such.

Actually, this is misinterpretation, at least on the part of anti-choice Christians. Not only is God never shown as caring one bit about abortion in the Bible (at least, don't know about other 'holy books'), but he in fact does some 'aborting' of his own (or commands people to). Here's an example:

"Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?" --http://www.evilbible.com/god's%20not%20pro-life.htm

There are more such examples on that page. God, as depicted in the Bible, is most certainly not anything resembling pro-life, whether taken literally or even to simply mean 'against abortion.' God's even got no problem killing an innocent child as punishment to his/her parents if they're 'sinful.' How sick is that?

This so-called "Moral" position that the church has taken is represented in El Salvador.  It is now illegal for a woman to undergo an abortion in El Salvador under all circumstances, including rape, births that would threaten the lives of the mother, and incest.  As if this were not enough, there are women serving prison sentences for up to 30 years for having an abortion.  Does this not seem both ludicrous and obviously morally indefensible?  Or is your mind so convoluted by Christianity that you think the life of a fully-grown woman is less important than that of a small bundle of cells that was achieved through a forced sexual encounter?  Your logic is both contorted and damning.

Indeed.

So yes, I agree with you that morals and rights are connected in many ways, but only when those morals are just.

That's the rub, though. Think about it--almost everybody only selectively believes in the Bible, and the 'selections' tend to be the less insane (I would be understating it to use any other word) excerpts. So here's the million-dollar question: if people are able to decide what from the Bible should be followed and what shouldn't, does that not prove that the ability to decide what is and isn't moral _doesn't_ come from scripture?

And as has been proved many times, those of the church are often not so.  I would say it is the right of a mother to decide whether or not to keep a child that was forced upon her, or that would threaten her life.

I would add a child who the parent(s) are not prepared to raise, whether because of a lack of money, responsibility, maturity, etc. I think it's better for a child to not be born than to be born to parents who can't adequately raise him/her. It's funny (only because I have an appreciation for dark humor) that prospective adoptive parents have to go through an assload of paperwork and evaluation before they can even be considered for adopting a child, but any moron couple of horny teenagers can pop out as many as they want, and no one's got anything to say about it.

[Guest Paul]

The way you describe it makes it sound completely arbitrary, like having the card game "hearts" when it could have been the card game "clubs."

Do you intend to stand pat with your description?

I've already described mine.  It's not so tough getting me to answer questions that are relevant, so long as the attempt to shift the burden of proof isn't too outrageous. 

Mine is the same as that of the Framers, in essence.  Rights are based in morality, and morality is established in god (God).  Man thus has no power to alter the foundation for rights, which does not appear to be the case with your system (though your description above is so thin as to allow impressive space for elaboration).

If you agree that this is a problem for your system, I'd like to hear you address it.

If you don't think it's a problem for your system, then I'd like to know why not.

You didn't exactly bend over backwards apologizing for your faux pas, did you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, you are just dead wrong. The Framers debated putting "God" into the Constitution (i.e., making a theistic as opposed to a secular Constitution) and chose not to. They adopted a secular Constitution. You cite the Declaration of Independence, which does include a reference to "their Creator," but that document does not have the force of law, and it is not the law of our country. By contrast, the Constitution is our country's fundamental law, controlling on all other laws. You're just dead wrong. So says the US Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of our nation's laws.

To make matters worse, you assume the existence of "God" (would you care to define precisely what you mean: the biblical god, or just a deity in general, or something else --- any way you slice it you're into territory on which the state must remain neutral), and then argue "Man thus has no power to alter the foundation for rights . . ." What is the basis for that bit of metaphysical fluff? For that matter, what does it even mean?

I have news for you. Man decides what rights will be accorded to human beings all the time. Man altered the rights of Africans by putting them on boats and bringing them across the Atlantic to be slaves in Alabama cotton fields. Man has altered the rights of Jews in all sorts of ways. Man has altered the rights of women throughout history. And children and people of minority races and religions, etc., ad nauseam.

Now before you point out that your reference is to "the foundation for rights," I did notice the difference in terms. But what basis have you for making that statement? What foundation of rights? What are rights? The same people who wrote so eloquently of "inalienable rights" denied those very rights, such as liberty, to the slaves they owned. There is no objective basis for "rights." Rights are products of the human mind, which looks at the human being with empathy and asks "were I in my brother's or sister's shoes, how would I like to be treated." We sing ourselves to sleep with the comforting lullaby of a god-given set of rights, but if rights were truly god-given and inalienable, humans would not have the power to take them away. There is no basis whatsoever for a "foundation of rights" in a godhead. That is why our laws must have a secular purpose.

You keep accusing me of shifting the burden. But in fact it is you who attempts to shift the burden. You want a system of laws based on theology. That is not what we have. It is your responsibility to elucidate and defend your vision. I don't shy away from elucidating and defending mine. My system of laws is based on a universal ethic, which can be expressed as honoring and valuing all people. That is the vision that informs the Golden Rule, but the rule is not exclusive to Christianity. On the contrary, each of the world's major religions claims it for itself.

The fact that you keep trying not to elucidate or defend your vision says a lot. Be proud of your vision, Bryan. Spell it out for us to see. Then we can evaluate it and decide whether we agree with you. You can start by clarifying the fluff I've quoted above, from your last post.

[an American in Texas]

Or is your mind so convoluted by Christianity that you think the life of a fully-grown woman is less important than that of a small bundle of cells that was achieved through a forced sexual encounter?  Your logic is both contorted and damning.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, let me say that I agree with your post. The only point I'd like to make is that Bryan does not represent the whole of Christendom.

Many Christians, if not the majority, reject the fundamentalism of the Religious Right. And most American Catholics reject the Church's position on birth control.

We don't get as much press. Maybe we don't say it loudly enough. Or maybe our beliefs aren't outrageous enough to attract the media's attention.

My mind isn't "convoluted by Christianity." I think Bryan's mind is convoluted, not by Christianity, but by Christianism, sometimes known as Christian Reconstructionism or Dominionism. Those views are rejected by liberal and moderate Christians.

Leigh Williams

Austin, Texas

[Wok2Moons]

I would add a child who the parent(s) are not prepared to raise, whether because of a lack of money, responsibility, maturity, etc. I think it's better for a child to not be born than to be born to parents who can't adequately raise him/her. It's funny (only because I have an appreciation for dark humor) that prospective adoptive parents have to go through an assload of paperwork and evaluation before they can even be considered for adopting a child, but any moron couple of horny teenagers can pop out as many as they want, and no one's got anything to say about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

An excellent point. It would seem that most Christians (and Leigh, I know I am generalizing here but stick with me; I agree with your argument about Christianism vs. Christianity) are more concerned with whether or not the child comes into the world than what happens to it once it is in existence. Why do they not devote more attention to whether or not infants are being properly cared for than making sure more of them are born? Thousands of people, many with one, two three, four or even more children, are living on the streets or in temporary shelters. In many places, such as the rougher areas of D.C., these children have a greater chance of dying, becoming an irreversible drug addict, going to prison, or getting a sexually transmitted disease before adulthood than their chance of living a productive life. This statistic should surely frighten anybody, no matter what their religious beliefs, far more than whether a poor mom in a back alley was raped and hence wants an abortion, or whether two people of the same gender have fallen in love with each other.

If Christians spent half as much time attending to the needy as they did protesting gay marriage and stem cell research, maybe we wouldn't have 3 million homeless roaming the streets of America (http://www.nscahh.org/hunger.asp?id2=8802). Or perhaps if they didn't put those few bucks into the church collecting tin to fuel yet another place of faith somewhere, and instead donated it to a homeless shelter, God, if he exists, might - just might - forgive them. Or does "He" really need the money more than that old man being led off to jail, arrested for sleeping on a bench because he was just evicted from the one-room apartment he was too poor to pay for? Anyone who answers yes to that question should, in my opinion, be thrown in jail themselves.

[Bryan]

The way you describe it makes it sound completely arbitrary, like having the card game "hearts" when it could have been the card game "clubs."

Do you intend to stand pat with your description?

I've already described mine.  It's not so tough getting me to answer questions that are relevant, so long as the attempt to shift the burden of proof isn't too outrageous.

Mine is the same as that of the Framers, in essence.  Rights are based in morality, and morality is established in god (God).  Man thus has no power to alter the foundation for rights, which does not appear to be the case with your system (though your description above is so thin as to allow impressive space for elaboration).

If you agree that this is a problem for your system, I'd like to hear you address it.

If you don't think it's a problem for your system, then I'd like to know why not.

You didn't exactly bend over backwards apologizing for your faux pas, did you?

Bryan, you are just dead wrong.

About what? You don't seem to be addressing anything at all I wrote in the post you quoted.

The Framers debated putting "God" into the Constitution (i.e., making a theistic as opposed to a secular Constitution) and chose not to.

Why would a Deist want that? Doesn't a Deist believe in god (and in those days they capitalized pretty close to randomly)?

They adopted a secular Constitution.

So where am I wrong?

You cite the Declaration of Independence, which does include a reference to "their Creator," but that document does not have the force of law, and it is not the law of our country. By contrast, the Constitution is our country's fundamental law, controlling on all other laws. You're just dead wrong. So says the US Supreme Court, which is the final arbiter of our nation's laws.

Yet you won't say what I'm wrong about.

1) I haven't stated that the Constitution is other than secular, have I? On the contrary, I've been trying to get you to be specific about what you mean by "secular world view" but you don't seem to want to answer.

2) I haven't addressed whether or not "god/God" was debated for inclusion in the Constitution. How could I be wrong about that?

Are you reading my mind (albeit inaccurately)?

Tell me what I'm wrong about, Paul.

To make matters worse, you assume the existence of "God" (would you care to define precisely what you mean: the biblical god, or just a deity in general, or something else --- any way you slice it you're into territory on which the state must remain neutral),

1) Your sentence is barely coherent if at all. Would you try rephrasing it?

2) You're back to arguing in a circle. Why must the state remain neutral (especially after you appear to have conceded that the state cannot remain neutral)?

and then argue "Man thus has no power to alter the foundation for rights . . ." What is the basis for that bit of metaphysical fluff?

Ever heard the term "unalienable"? Ever pondered what it means?

For that matter, what does it even mean?

It's a mystery.

I have news for you. Man decides what rights will be accorded to human beings all the time.

Yes, but is it right?

Man altered the rights of Africans by putting them on boats and bringing them across the Atlantic to be slaves in Alabama cotton fields. Man has altered the rights of Jews in all sorts of ways. Man has altered the rights of women throughout history. And children and people of minority races and religions, etc., ad nauseam.

Missed the point, eh?

Now before you point out that your reference is to "the foundation for rights," I did notice the difference in terms. But what basis have you for making that statement? What foundation of rights? What are rights?

Morals, in short.

The same people who wrote so eloquently of "inalienable rights" denied those very rights, such as liberty, to the slaves they owned. There is no objective basis for "rights." Rights are products of the human mind, which looks at the human being with empathy and asks "were I in my brother's or sister's shoes, how would I like to be treated."

Well, we seem to agree that rights are essentially morals ("oughts"), but you seem to have reversed yourself regarding your earlier claim that you have a rational and objective basis for morality.

Were you lying earlier? Did you change your mind?

Perhaps you just had a very difficult time expressing your thoughts?

In any case, it seems clear that you must think that the Declaration of Independence is a complete logical wreck. Affirm or deny?

We sing ourselves to sleep with the comforting lullaby of a god-given set of rights, but if rights were truly god-given and inalienable, humans would not have the power to take them away. There is no basis whatsoever for a "foundation of rights" in a godhead. That is why our laws must have a secular purpose.

I think you're doing a bait-and-switch with epistemology vs. metaphysic. A foundation of rights metaphysically based on a god does not entail a secular purpose, much less a humanistic foundation.

You keep accusing me of shifting the burden.

Yes, I do. And with good reason.

But in fact it is you who attempts to shift the burden. You want a system of laws based on theology.

I do? And it's up to me to prove you wrong?

That is not what we have. It is your responsibility to elucidate and defend your vision.

So even though it's been many days since you claimed to have an objective rational basis for morality and haven't lifted a finger to justify your claim, it is my responsibility to justify the vision you say I've got (even though I don't agree with what you say I'm claiming)?

Kind of seems like you're shifting the burden of proof.

I don't shy away from elucidating and defending mine.

Yes you do:

"The reason is that there is a rational and universal basis for values systems."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=49934

So what's the ethical principle, Paul? Majority makes right, or appeal to an objective morality based on ... what?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40391

Paul:

That doesn't mean that formal or organizational Humanism can be endorsed as the official state religion, but in fact there is no way to have liberty and justice for all people without legally requiring laws to have an objective foundation, and that means a secular foundation.

Bryan:

Paul claims to have found an objective foundation for the law? And thus an objective platform for morality?

I'm eager to see that argument as well. Rand was a spectacular flop, in terms of logic, so I'd be interested to see if LaClair can offer an alternative.

LaClair's response, which ignores the issue:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=51410

And again:

Paul:

I also believe we are stronger and better grounded in a reasoned law requiring that laws be supported by a rational secular purpose; else there is no objective standard for judging when government exceeds its proper powers.

Bryan:

Now you're right back to referring to the "objective" standard that you decline to defend.

That makes your foregoing statement mere empty rhetoric.

If you've really got a rational standard, then put it to the test in argument.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...539entry51539

Again, Paul's response skirts the issue:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=51609

Paul would have us believe that his historical unwillingness to address the issue is coincidence.

My system of laws is based on a universal ethic, which can be expressed as honoring and valuing all people.

That shooter at Virginia Tech had a funny way of expressing the universal ethic (to name but one exception).

What do you do when many people do not accept the universal ethic, since you apparently do not seem inclined to change the name of said ethic?

What is it that supposedly makes this ethic "universal" other than LaClair's say-so?

That is the vision that informs the Golden Rule, but the rule is not exclusive to Christianity. On the contrary, each of the world's major religions claims it for itself.

If it's not set in an objective (metaphysical) framework the "do unto others" precept is empty. The masochist, for example, is directed to harm his neighbor. In the Confucian formulation, rational self-defense is undermined.

And that's the problem with Paul's appeal to the so-called "universal ethic"--it's vague (probably intentionally so).

That and the fact that "universal" seems like a whopper of a misnomer.

What is it that supposedly makes it "universal"?

That's the kind of question Paul habitually skips.

The fact that you keep trying not to elucidate or defend your vision says a lot.

Mostly it says that I'm not releasing you from your burden of proof.

Other than that, it simply accords with my very sensible repeated instructions to you to have a look at the U.S. government as it worked during a period where the worldview of the nation was universally (I'll use it since it's truer than your use of the term) theistic.

LaClair, of course, repeatedly ignores that instruction without comment, insisting himself that I'm avoiding any description.

I say show, don't tell. The history is there to show LaClair what he asks for. He simply declines to look.

Be proud of your vision, Bryan. Spell it out for us to see. Then we can evaluate it and decide whether we agree with you. You can start by clarifying the fluff I've quoted above, from your last post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, you'll keep avoiding any justification for your non-universal "universal" ethic?

Sure looks like shifting the burden of proof.

By the way, what do you think I was wrong about?

Or do you just enjoy making such accusations repeatedly regardless of whether it's true?

[Bryan]

lol, okay Bryan. I so love destroying this persistent argument.

What makes you think it's an argument? Paul asked how I would answer a question.

All it takes is one question, and your answer doesn't even matter:

How open-minded of you.

Would you be an immoral person if you didn't believe in a god?

What do you mean by "immoral person"? I'd be inclined to assume that you mean to ask whether or not it is immoral to intellectually reject the existence of God. No, I don't think that's immoral per se.

If you answer yes, then you have shown that you are indeed an immoral person, for what else can be said of someone who is only 'being good' by lure of a reward or fear of punishment after death?

What does the motive for belief have to do with whether or not it is immoral to intellectually reject the existence of god?

Do you think that it is impossible to believe in god based on evidences rather than motives?

Such a way of life makes one no better than people who stop stealing office supplies from their job only because a surveillance camera was installed. This is also reminiscent of the 'lip service'-esque 'faith' involved in Pascal's Wager.

If you answer no, then you have self-destructed your own argument and admitted that morality without theism is possible.

When did I argue that morality without theism isn't possible?

When I challenge atheists and skeptics regarding their foundation for morality, I am not discussing with them whether or not they are capable of individual choices that are relatively better than the remaining options. I am engaging them in dialogue in which I hope to demonstrate that their worldview is incoherent.

The difference is not small.

If threat of otherwordly punishment or hope for otherworldly reward is the driving force behind one's level of 'morality,' then they have exposed themselves to be quite morally deficient.

I don't think you can get there from disbelief being a sin. Not without a pretty big fallacy.

Let me ask you something: who is more moral, in your opinion? One who doesn't commit a crime because one doesn't want to risk being jailed, or one who, even in a situation where there is zero risk of being caught, doesn't commit the same crime?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Neither acted wrongly, so there is no basis to rank one over the other unless we count the first one's covetousness against him (and if the second one is covetous also, then we'd need more information as to why he refrained from the act).

In terms of science, you're allowing too many variables.

But then again, how noble is it to refrain from doing a wrong act to which one is not inclined? Who is more noble--the one who does not snatch the candy from the baby because it doesn't occur to him, or the one who wants the candy desperately but refrains from doing so based on a sense of duty?

[Strife767]

An excellent point.  It would seem that most Christians (and Leigh, I know I am generalizing here but stick with me; I agree with your argument about Christianism vs. Christianity) are more concerned with whether or not the child comes into the world than what happens to it once it is in existence.

Exactly! I think George Carlin put it well:

Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus, from conception to 9 months. After that they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No neo-natal care, no day care, no HeadStart, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare. If you're preborn you're fine, if you're preschool, you're f*cked!

These people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?

You don't see many of these white anti-abortion women volunteering to have any black fetuses transplanted into their uteruses, do you? Nah, you don't see them adopting a whole lot of crack-babies, do you? Nah, that might be something Christ would do!

Why do they not devote more attention to whether or not infants are being properly cared for than making sure more of them are born?  Thousands of people, many with one, two three, four or even more children, are living on the streets or in temporary shelters.  In many places, such as the rougher areas of D.C., these children have a greater chance of dying, becoming an irreversible drug addict, going to prison, or getting a sexually transmitted disease before adulthood than their chance of living a productive life.  This statistic should surely frighten anybody, no matter what their religious beliefs, far more than whether a poor mom in a back alley was raped and hence wants an abortion, or whether two people of the same gender have fallen in love with each other. 

If Christians spent half as much time attending to the needy as they did protesting gay marriage and stem cell research, maybe we wouldn't have 3 million homeless roaming the streets of America (http://www.nscahh.org/hunger.asp?id2=8802).  Or perhaps if they didn't put those few bucks into the church collecting tin to fuel yet another place of faith somewhere, and instead donated it to a homeless shelter, God, if he exists, might - just might - forgive them.  Or does "He" really need the money more than that old man being led off to jail, arrested for sleeping on a bench because he was just evicted from the one-room apartment he was too poor to pay for?  Anyone who answers yes to that question should, in my opinion, be thrown in jail themselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Lol, gotta say, you brought up another memory of a Carlin quote (what can I say? He's hilarious and speaks the truth ):

[God] loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money! Religion takes in billions of dollars, they pay no taxes, and they always need a little more."

[Strife767]

Why would a Deist want [a secular nation]?  Doesn't a Deist believe in god (and in those days they capitalized pretty close to randomly)?

Way to show just how ignorant you are of Deism, Bryan.

Deists believe in God, but also believe that he has no concerns nor involvement in any human affairs. They don't believe in miracles, they don't believe he hears prayers, nothing. Their belief is that God set things in motion then just sat back and watched, basically.

So the fact that a bunch of Deists were in favor of a secular nation makes perfect sense--that is, to those who understand what Deism is.

It's hard to decide whether it's more funny or surreal for an atheist to be correcting you on a subject like this, I've got to say.

[Guest Guest]

Bryan, Bryan, Bryan......... What the f_ _ _ do you get from these endless, mindless bloviations with an obsessive, compulsive lunatic like Paul.  Of course, I know nothing about you, but my guess is you desperately need a girlfriend.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeesh, even 2smart4u smacks "Bryan".

[Guest Paul]

Bryan, you are just dead wrong.

About what? You don't seem to be addressing anything at all I wrote in the post you quoted.

Why would a Deist want that? Doesn't a Deist believe in god (and in those days they capitalized pretty close to randomly)?

So where am I wrong?

Yet you won't say what I'm wrong about.

1) I haven't stated that the Constitution is other than secular, have I? On the contrary, I've been trying to get you to be specific about what you mean by "secular world view" but you don't seem to want to answer.

2) I haven't addressed whether or not "god/God" was debated for inclusion in the Constitution. How could I be wrong about that?

Are you reading my mind (albeit inaccurately)?

Tell me what I'm wrong about, Paul.

1) Your sentence is barely coherent if at all. Would you try rephrasing it?

2) You're back to arguing in a circle. Why must the state remain neutral (especially after you appear to have conceded that the state cannot remain neutral)?

Ever heard the term "unalienable"? Ever pondered what it means?

It's a mystery.

Yes, but is it right?

Missed the point, eh?

Now before you point out that your reference is to "the foundation for rights," I did notice the difference in terms. But what basis have you for making that statement? What foundation of rights? What are rights?

Morals, in short.

The same people who wrote so eloquently of "inalienable rights" denied those very rights, such as liberty, to the slaves they owned. There is no objective basis for "rights." Rights are products of the human mind, which looks at the human being with empathy and asks "were I in my brother's or sister's shoes, how would I like to be treated."

Well, we seem to agree that rights are essentially morals ("oughts"), but you seem to have reversed yourself regarding your earlier claim that you have a rational and objective basis for morality.

Were you lying earlier? Did you change your mind?

Perhaps you just had a very difficult time expressing your thoughts?

In any case, it seems clear that you must think that the Declaration of Independence is a complete logical wreck. Affirm or deny?

We sing ourselves to sleep with the comforting lullaby of a god-given set of rights, but if rights were truly god-given and inalienable, humans would not have the power to take them away. There is no basis whatsoever for a "foundation of rights" in a godhead. That is why our laws must have a secular purpose.

I think you're doing a bait-and-switch with epistemology vs. metaphysic. A foundation of rights metaphysically based on a god does not entail a secular purpose, much less a humanistic foundation.

You keep accusing me of shifting the burden.

Yes, I do. And with good reason.

But in fact it is you who attempts to shift the burden. You want a system of laws based on theology.

I do? And it's up to me to prove you wrong?

That is not what we have. It is your responsibility to elucidate and defend your vision.

So even though it's been many days since you claimed to have an objective rational basis for morality and haven't lifted a finger to justify your claim, it is my responsibility to justify the vision you say I've got (even though I don't agree with what you say I'm claiming)?

Kind of seems like you're shifting the burden of proof.

I don't shy away from elucidating and defending mine.

Yes you do:

"The reason is that there is a rational and universal basis for values systems."

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=49934

So what's the ethical principle, Paul? Majority makes right, or appeal to an objective morality based on ... what?

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=40391

Paul:

That doesn't mean that formal or organizational Humanism can be endorsed as the official state religion, but in fact there is no way to have liberty and justice for all people without legally requiring laws to have an objective foundation, and that means a secular foundation.

Bryan:

Paul claims to have found an objective foundation for the law? And thus an objective platform for morality?

I'm eager to see that argument as well. Rand was a spectacular flop, in terms of logic, so I'd be interested to see if LaClair can offer an alternative.

LaClair's response, which ignores the issue:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=51410

And again:

Paul:

I also believe we are stronger and better grounded in a reasoned law requiring that laws be supported by a rational secular purpose; else there is no objective standard for judging when government exceeds its proper powers.

Bryan:

Now you're right back to referring to the "objective" standard that you decline to defend.

That makes your foregoing statement mere empty rhetoric.

If you've really got a rational standard, then put it to the test in argument.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...539entry51539

Again, Paul's response skirts the issue:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=51609

Paul would have us believe that his historical unwillingness to address the issue is coincidence.

My system of laws is based on a universal ethic, which can be expressed as honoring and valuing all people.

That shooter at Virginia Tech had a funny way of expressing the universal ethic (to name but one exception).

What do you do when many people do not accept the universal ethic, since you apparently do not seem inclined to change the name of said ethic?

What is it that supposedly makes this ethic "universal" other than LaClair's say-so?

That is the vision that informs the Golden Rule, but the rule is not exclusive to Christianity. On the contrary, each of the world's major religions claims it for itself.

If it's not set in an objective (metaphysical) framework the "do unto others" precept is empty. The masochist, for example, is directed to harm his neighbor. In the Confucian formulation, rational self-defense is undermined.

And that's the problem with Paul's appeal to the so-called "universal ethic"--it's vague (probably intentionally so).

That and the fact that "universal" seems like a whopper of a misnomer.

What is it that supposedly makes it "universal"?

That's the kind of question Paul habitually skips.

The fact that you keep trying not to elucidate or defend your vision says a lot.

Mostly it says that I'm not releasing you from your burden of proof.

Other than that, it simply accords with my very sensible repeated instructions to you to have a look at the U.S. government as it worked during a period where the worldview of the nation was universally (I'll use it since it's truer than your use of the term) theistic.

LaClair, of course, repeatedly ignores that instruction without comment, insisting himself that I'm avoiding any description.

I say show, don't tell. The history is there to show LaClair what he asks for. He simply declines to look.

Be proud of your vision, Bryan. Spell it out for us to see. Then we can evaluate it and decide whether we agree with you. You can start by clarifying the fluff I've quoted above, from your last post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, you'll keep avoiding any justification for your non-universal "universal" ethic?

Sure looks like shifting the burden of proof.

By the way, what do you think I was wrong about?

Or do you just enjoy making such accusations repeatedly regardless of whether it's true?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, it's very simple. We are all human. That is what binds us together. Try to base the law on anything but that and it will fall apart in conflict and division.

[Guest Guest]

Paul,

To engage in Bryan's every line-by-line distraction is just to play his game.

A: You won't change Bryan's mind, so it's pointless.

B: No one else will bother to read these line-by-line either.

Therefore, keep your responses no longer than what will fit in the little text box that pops up when you reply. Keep it short, simple and to-the-point. Try to distill whatever point Bryan seems to try to be making and point out a single key flaw that describes his whole argument. This isn't difficult, because at it's heart, he conjures up a lot of fluff out of nothing to defend any indefensible position.

Always highlight that indefensible position.

You don't have to out-Bryan Bryan. You can't. And I imagine it's no fun for you.

But to see him blotivate line-by-line any simple post like it was a Shakespearean poem worthy of grad student literary criticism is just fascinating.

Oh, and Bryan, feel free to follow this same advice. It won't help your arguments, but it may cut down on your CTS.

[Bryan]

Paul,

To engage in Bryan's every line-by-line distraction is just to play his game.

He's caught in the game no matter how he replies (even with utter silence).

Paul has been very careful to avoid answering my posts in any detail, however, so if that's the strategy you recommend for him, he hardly seems to need your advice.

A:  You won't change Bryan's mind, so it's pointless.

What would change your mind about that?

What if LaClair actually had an argument that wasn't pathetic for once?

Check this one out:

"Bryan, it's very simple. We are all human. That is what binds us together. Try to base the law on anything but that and it will fall apart in conflict and division."

Is there any sense in this response?

"We are all human."

Then why have societies treated other apparent humans as something other than human?

LaClair can't afford to get into that discussion, because it immediately illustrates that he isn't offering a "universal" in the sense of something that everyone accepts--he's offering a "universal" in the sense of something he thinks everyone should accept.

So where's the foundation in philosophy for that view?

There is none, as LaClair describes it (he could go deeper but can't afford to because the view falls apart).

LaClair is just offering an axiom with no justification behind it.

Yet what did LaClair say, earlier?

"[T]here is a rational and universal basis for values systems."

"I don't shy away from elucidating and defending mine."

The former has never been rationally supported by LaClair.

The latter, as a result, appears to be utter hogwash.

And that's Paul's quandary at this point. He has made some rather sensational claims about the view he would enforce on Kearny.

He probably hoped those would just be taken as true without any deep consideration by the KOTW readers (and "Guest" is right on board: "No one else will bother to read these line-by-line either.")

Almost forget the rest of his vacuous response (forgettable as it was):

"That is what binds us together."

Could have fooled Stalin and Mao.

"Try to base the law on anything but that and it will fall apart in conflict and division."

Where is the example of human-based law that did not fall apart in conflict and division?

That's the funniest part yet.

LaClair himself is in the center of conflict and division based on his attempt to enforce his "human-based" law. And of course the fault lies completely with the other side. A perfect analog to a religious conflict?

B:  No one else will bother to read these line-by-line either.

Except for you?

Therefore, keep your responses no longer than what will fit in the little text box that pops up when you reply.

And if that makes LaClair a liar for claiming that he's perfectly willing to expand on his views, what of it?

Nothing could change Guest's mind--is that it?

Keep it short, simple and to-the-point.

LaClair, unfortunately, cannot afford to really get to the point in a true sense. Certainly he can get to the "point" of simply reiterating his view (without elaboration) while repeating personal attacks.

Of course, that gives me the reply option of quickly getting to the point that Paul hasn't really addressed the point.

Coincidentally, that has happened repeatedly already.

Try to distill whatever point Bryan seems to try to be making and point out a single key flaw that describes his whole argument.

Can't you see that he's been trying to do that? Oh, that's right--nobody reads the line-by-line responses, so you wouldn't be aware of Paul's difficulties in that department. He keeps coming up with straw men.

While he's coming up with straw men, however, I'm able to quote Paul's position from his own posts while respecting the context.

If LaClair's position is unclear or self-contradictory, as often seems to be the case, I ask him to expand on his position.

Typically, he'll respond with either silence or a distraction technique.

This isn't difficult, because at it's heart, he conjures up a lot of fluff out of nothing to defend any indefensible position.

For example?

No, eh? What a surprise.

Always highlight that indefensible position.

You don't have to out-Bryan Bryan. You can't.

"Guest" apparently failed to notice that, minus the avoidance of truly addressing the point each time, the advice he has given to Paul is exactly what I'm doing to Paul.

I always highlight his indefensible position (sometimes gently, sometimes not as gently).

And Paul has yet to address the problems I've pointed out, save with empty platitudes.

But to see him blotivate line-by-line any simple post like it was a Shakespearean poem worthy of grad student literary criticism is just fascinating.

Not that you read it, right?

Keep an open mind: Don't read what I write.

Heh.

Oh, and Bryan, feel free to follow this same advice.

I'm way ahead of you, though I don't see any reason to ensure that my responses are as brief and empty as Paul's.

The topic is actually complicated to some degree. Therefore, it will tend to take more words whenever a real dialogue on the issue takes place.

Your advice to LaClair cannot help him. He's in too deep, now, and I'll exploit his weakness no matter what strategy he chooses.

It won't help your arguments, but it may cut down on your CTS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As a matter of fact, I've got good posture, and my forearm structure is not of the type that tends to predispose to CT problems. Plus I'm missing palmaris longus bilaterally, which seems like it would only leave more room in there.

Don't forget to avoid reading my long posts while also claiming that what I write is just fluff.

Makes you look like a real authority.

[Strife767]

What makes you think it's an argument?  Paul asked how I would answer a question.

How open-minded of you.

What do you mean by "immoral person"?  I'd be inclined to assume that you mean to ask whether or not it is immoral to intellectually reject the existence of God.  No, I don't think that's immoral per se.

What does the motive for belief have to do with whether or not it is immoral to intellectually reject the existence of god?

Do you think that it is impossible to believe in god based on evidences rather than motives?

When did I argue that morality without theism isn't possible?

When I challenge atheists and skeptics regarding their foundation for morality, I am not discussing with them whether or not they are capable of individual choices that are relatively better than the remaining options.  I am engaging them in dialogue in which I hope to demonstrate that their worldview is incoherent.

The difference is not small.

I don't think you can get there from disbelief being a sin.  Not without a pretty big fallacy.

Neither acted wrongly, so there is no basis to rank one over the other unless we count the first one's covetousness against him (and if the second one is covetous also, then we'd need more information as to why he refrained from the act).

In terms of science, you're allowing too many variables.

But then again, how noble is it to refrain from doing a wrong act to which one is not inclined?  Who is more noble--the one who does not snatch the candy from the baby because it doesn't occur to him, or the one who wants the candy desperately but refrains from doing so based on a sense of duty?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try this post again, except without the ridiculous assumption you made about the 'immorality' I'm talking about being the disbelief itself. Obviously I meant 'immorality' as it's generally understood among people: the 'lie/cheat/steal' type.

[Bryan]

Why would a Deist want [a secular nation]?  Doesn't a Deist believe in god (and in those days they capitalized pretty close to randomly)?

Way to show just how ignorant you are of Deism, Bryan.

Try to explain without your customary unintended irony.

Deists believe in God, but also believe that he has no concerns nor involvement in any human affairs.

Are you answering my question, or supposedly showing how ignorant of Deism I am?

They don't believe in miracles, they don't believe he hears prayers, nothing.

Yet, if you knew as much about Deism as I do, you would know that not all Deists refrain(ed) from prayer.

Their belief is that God set things in motion then just sat back and watched, basically.

So are you answering my question obliquely, or still supposedly showing how ignorant of Deism I am?

So the fact that a bunch of Deists were in favor of a secular nation makes perfect sense--that is, to those who understand what Deism is.

So, if you were to answer my question without the dancing and evasion, what would it look like?

Deists wanted a secular government because they didn't believe in miracles or a god who took an active interest in human affairs.

?

Isn't that a non sequitur, akin to Becky wanted to open the can of beans, so she wore her red lipstick.

?

It's hard to decide whether it's more funny or surreal for an atheist to be correcting you on a subject like this, I've got to say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Way to pack on the irony, there.

"Not all Deists pray, but those that do will usually pray in a few common ways."

http://deistic.info/html/practicing_deism.html

I'm fascinated at your enthusiastic and repeated self-humiliation, Strife. It is unwise to assume that I am unaware of the answers to the questions I ask. I mostly use questions to learn the views of others and draw them to think about the consistency of their views. Look up the Socratic method.

[Guest Paul]

QUOTE

Let me ask you something: who is more moral, in your opinion? One who doesn't commit a crime because one doesn't want to risk being jailed, or one who, even in a situation where there is zero risk of being caught, doesn't commit the same crime?

Neither acted wrongly, so there is no basis to rank one over the other unless we count the first one's covetousness against him (and if the second one is covetous also, then we'd need more information as to why he refrained from the act).

In terms of science, you're allowing too many variables.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No the writer is making the point, as I read it, that what's inside us matters. Some people call it spirit or soul. In more secular terms we could call it thought and emotion. Either way, these are the parents of our actions. Why we do what we do matters.

When someone does not understand and appreciate this, in what sense if any can he be religious?

[Guest Paul]

Paul,

To engage in Bryan's every line-by-line distraction is just to play his game.

A:  You won't change Bryan's mind, so it's pointless.

B:  No one else will bother to read these line-by-line either.

Therefore, keep your responses no longer than what will fit in the little text box that pops up when you reply.  Keep it short, simple and to-the-point.  Try to distill whatever point Bryan seems to try to be making and point out a single key flaw that describes his whole argument.  This isn't difficult, because at it's heart, he conjures up a lot of fluff out of nothing to defend any indefensible position.

Always highlight that indefensible position.

You don't have to out-Bryan Bryan.  You can't.  And I imagine it's no fun for you.

But to see him blotivate line-by-line any simple post like it was a Shakespearean poem worthy of grad student literary criticism is just fascinating.

Oh, and Bryan, feel free to follow this same advice.  It won't help your arguments, but it may cut down on your CTS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're absolutely right. See the post just above.

Sometimes I can't help it, Guest. I see an idea move and I have to chase it, even if it isn't much of an idea.

Thank you for the reminder. (What is CTS?)

[Guest Paul]

Paul,

To engage in Bryan's every line-by-line distraction is just to play his game.

A:  You won't change Bryan's mind, so it's pointless.

B:  No one else will bother to read these line-by-line either.

Therefore, keep your responses no longer than what will fit in the little text box that pops up when you reply.  Keep it short, simple and to-the-point.  Try to distill whatever point Bryan seems to try to be making and point out a single key flaw that describes his whole argument.  This isn't difficult, because at it's heart, he conjures up a lot of fluff out of nothing to defend any indefensible position.

Always highlight that indefensible position.

You don't have to out-Bryan Bryan.  You can't.  And I imagine it's no fun for you.

But to see him blotivate line-by-line any simple post like it was a Shakespearean poem worthy of grad student literary criticism is just fascinating.

Oh, and Bryan, feel free to follow this same advice.  It won't help your arguments, but it may cut down on your CTS.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

P.S. and by the way: I probably could out-Bryan him. For me, that's the scary part.

[Guest Paul]

Check this one out:

"Bryan, it's very simple. We are all human. That is what binds us together. Try to base the law on anything but that and it will fall apart in conflict and division."

Is there any sense in this response?

"We are all human."

Then why have societies treated other apparent humans as something other than human?

LaClair can't afford to get into that discussion, because it immediately illustrates that he isn't offering a "universal" in the sense of something that everyone accepts--he's offering a "universal" in the sense of something he thinks everyone should accept.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, everyone should accept it. All legal systems are based on the idea of what "should" be. The difference with putting our common humanity as our first and central principle is that it is based on an objective (shared) reality: we are all human, and that humanity is what matters most. For each of us, that is true. The trick is to live by the recognition that each person has as great an objective claim to happiness as everyone else. That is what equality means. Everyone is entitled (should be entitled by law) to equal rights, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc. Why? Because that is the only way the system works for everyone. If you don't care whether the system works for everyone, that's up to you, but game theory (which is based on evolutionary principles) tells us why it works, so one is well-advised to know something about game theory before claiming that this isn't objective.

We claim to accept and live by this, but often we don't. It is the essence of "liberty and justice for all," the Golden Rule and probably many other ways of announcing a principle out of the simple, objective fact that we are all human. Make that the central Truth of your ethical, moral and legal system, and you can't go far wrong. You won't be perfect --- no one is --- but you probably won't enslave people or commit genocide because you want someone else's land, etc.

Treating our common humanity as central is perhaps the only principle that contains a built-in check against its own abuse --- a principle that is very hard to turn into dogmatism because its very essence is that respect and honor are to be accorded to everyone. Christians (and others) claim this principle as their own (the Golden Rule), but when it comes time to living by it --- well, sometimes that's another story. The main reason they don't is that people are self-interested. The whole point of a just government is putting aside self-interest to a sufficient degree that society becomes possible: do what is best for all, not just for yourself. That is what citizenship is. If you don't believe in that, Bryan, that's up to you.

Depart from that as your centralizing organizing principle, and your society will have problems, for example:

1. racism

2. sexism

3. ethnic division

4. divisions over religious differences

5. nationalism

6. etc., ad nauseam.

The central Truth that makes justice possible is our common humanity. Hold to that and you'll have as just a system as any collection of human beings can put together. Depart from it and there is trouble. That's how simple it is.

[Bryan]

No

No what?

the writer is making the point, as I read it, that what's inside us matters.

Wasn't my reply in keeping with that idea?

Some people call it spirit or soul. In more secular terms we could call it thought and emotion. Either way, these are the parents of our actions.  Why we do what we do matters.

If it matters, which is another nettlesome problem for non-theistic worldviews.

When someone does not understand and appreciate this, in what sense if any can he be religious?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is covetousness an external act or an internal one?

This post continues Paul's pattern of making as though I have made some kind of error in need of correction, where Paul does not (and is not able to coherently) identify the supposed problem.

[Bryan]

P.S. and by the way: I probably could out-Bryan him. For me, that's the scary part.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You should start right away by cutting down on your regular commission of mistakes, such as your supposition that there was no U.S.A. predating the ratification of the Constitution.

You were proved wrong, and as with many other errors you've committed you probably won't own up to it.