(01-20-2014 01:38 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(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?

We are secular in a sense that we need more than a religious reason to enact laws ("because the Bible says so" doesn't cut it). We all need to recognized that the vast majority of our elected officials have some sort of faith which influences their worldview.

So yes, we can insist that policy decisions have a secular rationale, but we can't insist that people leave their faith at the door.

(01-20-2014 01:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  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?

Law derived from the proper place may be inherently good. There have clearly been laws constructed by man that don't represent the natural innate code of goodness produced by the universe. (Jim Crow) That is why I answered that question with a "no".

(01-20-2014 01:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  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.

That's interesting. Did not know that bad law, under some definitions, is not law. Thanks for this lesson on jurisprudence.

(01-20-2014 01:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  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.

That is an interesting logical chain. But I firmly don't think this chain produces the idea that there must be a God. Certainly not one religion describes. Perhaps just a deity. I'm truly more of an agnostic than an atheist anyway.

Conceptual ground work is now laid I guess.

I find it interesting that you ask "Is law inherently good?" then after my response you exclude "bad law" from pool of considerable laws. Of course good law in inherently good! ahah.

(01-20-2014 01:43 PM)Hitch Wrote:  We are secular in a sense that we need more than a religious reason to enact laws ("because the Bible says so" doesn't cut it). We all need to recognized that the vast majority of our elected officials have some sort of faith which influences their worldview.

So yes, we can insist that policy decisions have a secular rationale, but we can't insist that people leave their faith at the door.

Nothing disagreeable here.

(01-20-2014 09:57 AM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 09:49 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Is that your religion?

Is what my religion?

(01-20-2014 09:52 AM)Crebman Wrote:  I'm sure there are many non-religious Democrats as well. Are you really trying to connect the non-religious with Libertarians? Really?

A large percentage of the non-religious are fiscally conservative and perhaps vice versa. I was simply pointing that out. NC Herd Fan is the one who seemed to equate a non-religious stance with liberal ideology.

I was not so much trying to connect non-religious with the left, as connect their favorite tactic of attacking all who disagree with their values and beliefs as BIGOTS! I don't know any Libertarians that do this, I'm sure there are some that do.

(01-20-2014 12:35 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 12:29 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  "Where does this misconception come from? Morals are drawn from human reason about what is right and wrong. There is a much smaller percentage of atheists in prison than in the general population. "

Gotcha, so your moral values come from the law. If it is legal, it's moral and vice versa. In other words, Government is your God. See, you are not atheist.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Nope. But most of our laws are set into place because reason tells us they should be. See the natural connection there? My reason tells me murder, rape, and theft are wrong. Murderers, rapists, and felons are in prison.

In the 1800's you could murder someone just for calling you out and nothing happened.

HeartOfDixie:

If you use this as an argument for the case of God, you really must submit to the problem of evil. Especially when evil occurs in reality whereas law is an ideal.

(01-20-2014 01:48 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  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?

Law derived from the proper place may be inherently good. There have clearly been laws constructed by man that don't represent the natural innate code of goodness produced by the universe. (Jim Crow) That is why I answered that question with a "no".

(01-20-2014 01:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  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.

That's interesting. Did not know that bad law, under some definitions, is not law. Thanks for this lesson on jurisprudence.

(01-20-2014 01:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  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.

That is an interesting logical chain. But I firmly don't think this chain produces the idea that there must be a God. Certainly not one religion describes. Perhaps just a deity. I'm truly more of an agnostic than an atheist anyway.

Conceptual ground work is now laid I guess.

I find it interesting that you ask "Is law inherently good?" then after my response you exclude "bad law" from pool of considerable laws. Of course good law in inherently good! ahah.

It isn't proof; it does beg the question.

If you did some reading on the issue of jurisprudence you wouldn't be saying a lot of what you have on this thread.

I asked you the same questions I ask my students. Those two foundational questions point kids in certain directions. I didn't "exclude" anything. I presented the ideas of one school. That doesn't bode well for you having any foundational understanding.

(01-20-2014 02:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:48 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  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?

Law derived from the proper place may be inherently good. There have clearly been laws constructed by man that don't represent the natural innate code of goodness produced by the universe. (Jim Crow) That is why I answered that question with a "no".

(01-20-2014 01:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  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.

That's interesting. Did not know that bad law, under some definitions, is not law. Thanks for this lesson on jurisprudence.

(01-20-2014 01:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  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.

That is an interesting logical chain. But I firmly don't think this chain produces the idea that there must be a God. Certainly not one religion describes. Perhaps just a deity. I'm truly more of an agnostic than an atheist anyway.

Conceptual ground work is now laid I guess.

I find it interesting that you ask "Is law inherently good?" then after my response you exclude "bad law" from pool of considerable laws. Of course good law in inherently good! ahah.

It isn't proof; it does beg the question.

If you did some reading on the issue of jurisprudence you wouldn't be saying a lot of what you have on this thread.

I asked you the same questions I ask my students. Those two foundational questions point kids in certain directions. I didn't "exclude" anything. I presented the ideas of one school. That doesn't bode well for you having any foundational understanding.

That's true sir.

(01-20-2014 01:59 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  HeartOfDixie:

If you use this as an argument for the case of God, you really must submit to the problem of evil. Especially when evil occurs in reality whereas law is an ideal.

Is law an ideal?

You suggested earlier that law was a natural phenomenon.

(01-20-2014 02:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:59 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  HeartOfDixie:

If you use this as an argument for the case of God, you really must submit to the problem of evil. Especially when evil occurs in reality whereas law is an ideal.

Is law an ideal?

You suggested earlier that law was a natural phenomenon.

I haven't thought enough about it.

(01-20-2014 02:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:59 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  HeartOfDixie:

If you use this as an argument for the case of God, you really must submit to the problem of evil. Especially when evil occurs in reality whereas law is an ideal.

Is law an ideal?

You suggested earlier that law was a natural phenomenon.

For the sake of argument: Even if law is a natural phenomenon. Evil still presents a problem as it is a natural phenomenon.

God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).

(01-20-2014 02:03 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 02:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:59 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  HeartOfDixie:

If you use this as an argument for the case of God, you really must submit to the problem of evil. Especially when evil occurs in reality whereas law is an ideal.

Is law an ideal?

You suggested earlier that law was a natural phenomenon.

I haven't thought enough about it.

Here's what you said earlier...

"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."

There is no real discussion to be had if you have a shifting idea and definition of key concepts.

(01-20-2014 02:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 02:03 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 02:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:59 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  HeartOfDixie:

If you use this as an argument for the case of God, you really must submit to the problem of evil. Especially when evil occurs in reality whereas law is an ideal.

Is law an ideal?

You suggested earlier that law was a natural phenomenon.

I haven't thought enough about it.

Here's what you said earlier...

"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."

There is no real discussion to be had if you have a shifting idea and definition of key concepts.

I said may. I'm still in college and exploring these ideas. There was never the potential for a shift on this idea. I didn't have a firm stance on that point at the beginning of this discussion.

(01-20-2014 02:05 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 02:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:59 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  HeartOfDixie:

If you use this as an argument for the case of God, you really must submit to the problem of evil. Especially when evil occurs in reality whereas law is an ideal.

Is law an ideal?

You suggested earlier that law was a natural phenomenon.

For the sake of argument: Even if law is a natural phenomenon. Evil still presents a problem as it is a natural phenomenon.

How so?

Is law not a a natural counterbalance to evil? Thus our concept of malum in se?

(01-20-2014 02:09 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 02:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 02:03 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 02:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:59 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  HeartOfDixie:

If you use this as an argument for the case of God, you really must submit to the problem of evil. Especially when evil occurs in reality whereas law is an ideal.

Is law an ideal?

You suggested earlier that law was a natural phenomenon.

I haven't thought enough about it.

Here's what you said earlier...

"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."

There is no real discussion to be had if you have a shifting idea and definition of key concepts.

I said may. I'm still in college and exploring these ideas. There was never the potential for a shift on this idea. I didn't have a firm stance on that point at the beginning of this discussion.

Well, I'm not trying to pin you down on anything. I'm just trying to get a grasp on what you actually think and your conceptions.

(01-20-2014 02:09 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 02:05 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 02:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:59 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  HeartOfDixie:

If you use this as an argument for the case of God, you really must submit to the problem of evil. Especially when evil occurs in reality whereas law is an ideal.

Is law an ideal?

You suggested earlier that law was a natural phenomenon.

For the sake of argument: Even if law is a natural phenomenon. Evil still presents a problem as it is a natural phenomenon.

How so?

Is law not a a natural counterbalance to evil? Thus our concept of malum in se?

God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil exists.
Evil exists (logical contradiction).

Basically there can't be a God with all 3 of those traits.

The amount of logical fallacies, diversions, and flat out dishonesty in this thread is truly mind-boggling. It's a wonder some people manage to put on their pants in the morning.

EDIT: For the record I got to like page 4 of this thread before typing that. Frankly, I have a headache.

(01-20-2014 02:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:59 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  HeartOfDixie:

If you use this as an argument for the case of God, you really must submit to the problem of evil. Especially when evil occurs in reality whereas law is an ideal.

Is law an ideal?

You suggested earlier that law was a natural phenomenon.

Now that I've thought about this... Ideal is the conception of something in it's absolute perfection. If there was a natural law, it's expected that an ideal created by the reason of highly intelligent beings would run parallel to that. My whole point in saying that humans were the vessel is that our could have brains made apparent what nature intended.

When I called law an ideal and evil reality, my point was that law is just a moral guideline. People actually exhibit evil behavior.

(01-20-2014 02:05 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 02:02 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-20-2014 01:59 PM)Fatalisk Wrote:  HeartOfDixie:

If you use this as an argument for the case of God, you really must submit to the problem of evil. Especially when evil occurs in reality whereas law is an ideal.

Is law an ideal?

You suggested earlier that law was a natural phenomenon.

For the sake of argument: Even if law is a natural phenomenon. Evil still presents a problem as it is a natural phenomenon.

Evil is not a natural phenomenon it is constructed by people. That is why one group of people call something evil and others do not.