(01-20-2014 12:51 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:45 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  You are gretting yourself so worked up you are lost in your own argument.

I never asked you to explain anything. I just made a statement that got under your skin.

You quoted FOUR of my posts before I responded to you for the first time. Within those four posts you called me ignorant and a fool. Yet I'm the one who got under your skin? I think you were very interested in a conversation with me. :)

You want to post hateful, ignorant, bigoted crap about things and people you don't even care to try and understand.

Now when you are called on it, you are playing the victim card.

You got your little butthurt over my "blinking into existence" comment. Now here we are.

(01-20-2014 12:53 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:45 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:40 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You are sadly mistaken if you think laws only reflect those in power, or that morals are a way to control.

The common man doesn't do much policy making. Laws are clearly a way to control. Laws stem from the powers that be deem to be moral.

You won't find that in any mainstream school of jurisprudence, not one.

Three sentences there. You're referring to the second?

Bolded.

(01-20-2014 10:11 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Those who are actively or outwardly against religion suffer from fear. True atheists or anti theists don't feel the need to chastise anyone for believing.

Everyone sufferers from fear...it's a natural human condition.

(01-20-2014 12:40 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  You have done nothing but attack people of faith and their religion here with snarky, hateful posts and a general A-hole, arrogant tone.

Spare me if I don't buy into your personal "moral code".

I've seen enough of it on display in this thread.

I'll admit to being snarky. Everything else is too far. You've thrown more emotion my way than I have to the other 5 people I'm talking to combined. Message board snarkyness isn't against my moral code. Excuse me.

(01-20-2014 12:54 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  You want to post hateful, ignorant, bigoted crap about things and people you don't even care to try and understand.

Now when you are called on it, you are playing the victim card.

This is some weak stuff man. Hateful? Seriously? Also when have I played the victim? You continuously apply this things to that aren't true. Let's see all the things you've applied to me that aren't true:

1. ignorant
2. fool
3. god hater
4. dishonest
5. hateful
6. a-hole
7. irritated
8. you under my skin
9. playing victim
10. attacking people of faith

Just stop...

(01-20-2014 12:28 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

Quote:I don't think you can use Pascal's Wager as reason to believe and earn your ticket through the pearly gates.

Grossly dishonest and very telling post from you.

Just found this gem. What's dishonest with this?

(01-20-2014 12:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:53 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:45 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:40 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  You are sadly mistaken if you think laws only reflect those in power, or that morals are a way to control.

The common man doesn't do much policy making. Laws are clearly a way to control. Laws stem from the powers that be deem to be moral.

You won't find that in any mainstream school of jurisprudence, not one.

Three sentences there. You're referring to the second?

Bolded.

Laws are clearly intended to control the population. If not, what are they for?

I surely hope that the laws are in place because the law makers believed them to be moral. I was working on faith on that one...

(01-20-2014 01:05 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:40 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  You have done nothing but attack people of faith and their religion here with snarky, hateful posts and a general A-hole, arrogant tone.

Spare me if I don't buy into your personal "moral code".

I've seen enough of it on display in this thread.

I'll admit to being snarky. Everything else is too far. You've thrown more emotion my way than I have to the other 5 people I'm talking to combined. Message board snarkyness isn't against my moral code. Excuse me.

(01-20-2014 12:54 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  You want to post hateful, ignorant, bigoted crap about things and people you don't even care to try and understand.

Now when you are called on it, you are playing the victim card.

This is some weak stuff man. Hateful? Seriously? Also when have I played the victim? You continuously apply this things to that aren't true. Let's see all the things you've applied to me that aren't true:

1. ignorant
2. fool
3. god hater
4. dishonest
5. hateful
6. a-hole
7. irritated
8. you under my skin
9. playing victim
10. attacking people of faith

Just stop...

(01-20-2014 12:28 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

Quote:I don't think you can use Pascal's Wager as reason to believe and earn your ticket through the pearly gates.

Grossly dishonest and very telling post from you.

Just found this gem. What's dishonest with this?

What I posted about your comments is 100% correct.

You were not interested in a real or honest, respectful conversation, you just wanted to lash out at anyone who believes in God and belittle their beliefs.

We all saw it, I have no need to explain it further.

(01-20-2014 01:08 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  What I posted about your comments is 100% correct.

You were not interested in a conversation, you just wanted to lash out at anyone who believes in God and belittle their beliefs.

We all saw it, I have no need to explain it further.

The "ignore evidence" approach. Reality is subjective. Intriguing.

(01-20-2014 12:28 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

Quote:I don't think you can use Pascal's Wager as reason to believe and earn your ticket through the pearly gates.

Grossly dishonest and very telling post from you.

Explain?

(01-20-2014 01:07 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:53 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:48 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:45 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  The common man doesn't do much policy making. Laws are clearly a way to control. Laws stem from the powers that be deem to be moral.

You won't find that in any mainstream school of jurisprudence, not one.

Three sentences there. You're referring to the second?

Bolded.

Laws are clearly intended to control the population. If not, what are they for?

I surely hope that the laws are in place because the law makers believed them to be moral. I was working on faith on that one...

That's a question nobody has ever answered quite honestly.

2 questions have to be answered before you can get to the stage you seem to want to be in.

Is law inherently good?
Who posits law? Or, is law a natural phenomenon?

(01-20-2014 01:10 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:08 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  What I posted about your comments is 100% correct.

You were not interested in a conversation, you just wanted to lash out at anyone who believes in God and belittle their beliefs.

We all saw it, I have no need to explain it further.

The "ignore evidence" approach. Reality is subjective. Intriguing.

Whatever you have to tell yourself is fine with me.

(01-20-2014 01:08 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  We all saw it, I have no need to explain it further.

No one else is harping on about tone aside from you.

(01-20-2014 01:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That's a question nobody has ever answered quite honestly.

2 questions have to be answered before you can get to the stage you seem to want to be in.

Is law inherently good?
Who posits law? Or, is law a natural phenomenon?

Is law inherently good?
No

Who posits law?
Depends on society

Is law a natural phenomenon?
It exists, so by definition, it is natural.

(01-20-2014 01:14 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That's a question nobody has ever answered quite honestly.

2 questions have to be answered before you can get to the stage you seem to want to be in.

Is law inherently good?
Who posits law? Or, is law a natural phenomenon?

Is law inherently good?
No

Who posits law?

Depends on society

Is law a natural phenomenon?

It exists, so by definition, it is natural.

Think in the most macro sense possible. This is the 100,000ft view.

Who posits law? People? Nature?

(01-20-2014 01:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:14 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That's a question nobody has ever answered quite honestly.

2 questions have to be answered before you can get to the stage you seem to want to be in.

Is law inherently good?
Who posits law? Or, is law a natural phenomenon?

Is law inherently good?
No

Who posits law?

Depends on society

Is law a natural phenomenon?

It exists, so by definition, it is natural.

Think in the most macro sense possible. This is the 100,000ft view.

Who posits law? People? Nature?

Tough to say. Seems more like a philosophical question than anything. People may be the vessel through which law is written. Animals seem to abide by an innate moral guideline.

(01-20-2014 11:02 AM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Christianity was invented as a mechanism of control, and it is astoundingly good at doing just that. It's influence, however, is waning in western society. It's had a good run, but it's coming to an end. It will only be a few more generations before it falls below majority status in America. It's interesting to think about what, if anything, will rise to take its place.

Something is rising to take it's place right now. It's called Hedonism.

(01-20-2014 12:36 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  To add to that, much of American Law is derived from English legal doctrines that came with English settlers, the same laws that have Judeo-Christian roots.

There are numerous quotes from the founding fathers that conservative christians may find surprising. LINK 1 LINK 2

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams

(01-20-2014 01:24 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:36 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  To add to that, much of American Law is derived from English legal doctrines that came with English settlers, the same laws that have Judeo-Christian roots.

There are numerous quotes from the founding fathers that conservative christians may find surprising. LINK 1 LINK 2

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams

Then why is the federal govt closed on Sunday? What God are they referring to on our money?

(01-20-2014 01:24 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:36 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  To add to that, much of American Law is derived from English legal doctrines that came with English settlers, the same laws that have Judeo-Christian roots.

There are numerous quotes from the founding fathers that conservative christians may find surprising. LINK 1 LINK 2

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by John Adams

This is the sort of lazy quote-dropping that both sides of debates like this do. Let's first recognize that religious beliefs are not static through a person's life and that there are undoubtedly quotes from any given individual that represent their feelings about their own faith at any given time. The founding fathers were people after all, with all the good and bad that comes with that.

Secondly, let's also at least acknowledge two other facts:
1) The vast majority of Americans were (and still are) Christians, at least in the nominal sense and that that context matters.

2) The founders made a conscience decision not to codify any official religion into our government. That decision can not be ignored.

(01-20-2014 01:36 PM)Hitch Wrote:  This is the sort of lazy quote-dropping that both sides of debates like this do. Let's first recognize that religious beliefs are not static through a person's life and that there are undoubtedly quotes from any given individual that represent their feelings about their own faith at any given time. The founding fathers were people after all, with all the good and bad that comes with that.

Secondly, let's also at least acknowledge two other facts:
1) The vast majority of Americans were (and still are) Christians, at least in the nominal sense and that that context matters.

2) The founders made a conscience decision not to codify any official religion into our government. That decision can not be ignored.

I just thought some people might like the read it. The FACT that really ends this portion of the debate is that we're secular. Remember that whole separation of church and state thing we learned about in grade school?

(01-20-2014 01:19 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:15 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:14 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:11 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That's a question nobody has ever answered quite honestly.

2 questions have to be answered before you can get to the stage you seem to want to be in.

Is law inherently good?
Who posits law? Or, is law a natural phenomenon?

Is law inherently good?
No

Who posits law?

Depends on society

Is law a natural phenomenon?

It exists, so by definition, it is natural.

Think in the most macro sense possible. This is the 100,000ft view.

Who posits law? People? Nature?

Tough to say. Seems more like a philosophical question than anything. People may be the vessel through which law is written. Animals seem to abide by an innate moral guideline.

That's what jurisprudence is.

So you would agree with the position that law is a natural phenomenon? If so, how do you, accepting that the universe abides by a set of fundamental laws, say that law isn't good? That's a question asked in the most simple way, is law good?

Natural legal theorists say law is good. True law is morality and the expression of natural good. Bad law is not law, thus it doesn't last. Good law is both good and universal. This is the school of jurisprudence most influential to our legal system and our sense of morality and law.

The reason I'm going here is to demonstrate two things:
1) Through a perfectly logical chain on this subject it is quite possible to challenge your own beliefs about the existence of God,
2) My friend, you are simply unprepared to have a conversation on the subject of morality/religion/and law as was discussed earlier. By talking about these concepts it's quite obvious that you don't have the cognitive or conceptual tools to talk about that subject because all you really have is a gut instinct that is irrelevant to how we've gotten from there to here conceptually. You are looking at all of this through a set of glasses that make it impossible for you to see the framework underneath. I'm not saying you're stupid, far from it, but you don't have a foundation to interact with those ideas.