I am an atheist thread 4

[lkddav]

God may never give you something you can’t handle but the rest of the world sure likes to stick it’s orr in the water and complicate his work.

How could a human complicate the work of a God?

Things happen that God would not have happen and this is not his will.

Are you saying your God can’t control his will, not much of a god, HUH ??

Athiesm is a tool of satan and predators are focusing on young people.

Could you please explain what you mean by this dribble? Who are the predators here? I’m sorry but you lost me.

les

 

[Armor_of_God]

Hello Pax

…
This is no numbers game at all, just facts. If there was enough evidence, the whole world would be Christians.

les

Hi Les,

I understand you contend there is no evidence for any God. Why isn’t the whole world atheist?

 

[Pax]

If you can’t see all around you that cooperation pays off much more than the alternative, I can only restate that you have not provided any examples of this being true. Cooperation has given us space travel, the internet and the RCC. Give us your examples of non-cooperation being more successful, OK?
I wonder if you think they are just evil, perhaps possessed by demons, or if you think they are ill…

I can hardly believe that you cannot see the obvious. Do you really believe that Bill Gates built Microsoft into its position of domination within the industry by following your cooperative prescriptions? Do you really think that leaders are such because they fall into your mold of cooperation? Do you really believe that Mao became successful and rose to unite and rule communist China by cooperation? Do you really think that Donald Trump got where he is by following your cooperation theory? The answer is a resounding “NO!”

Your view is silly. You have simply chosen a value system that you happen to prefer. It is only a personal choice on your part because it seems to satisfy your own life and preconceived ideas. There is empirical data that shows that cooperation works for “most people.” The problem is that this data is not helpful in determining what is the best and most effective system for all people. Likewise, the system is only best for those that need it.

The most gifted and able don’t need to limit themselves to cooperation. Their vision is greater than your limited view. Their daring and risk taking is greater than yours. You simply don’t share what they have and neither do I. That does not make your preference for cooperation, which is suitable for most people, better than another. I will say it again. “Those that are gifted, sufficiently intelligent, and assertive will simply game your system of cooperation.” This is why some people wind up with all the marbles and others have very little.

An atheist should simply stop pretending when it comes to any specific set of moral standards and principles unless it maximizes his/her gains. Atheists should simply stop pretending that their acceptance of a secular humanistic value system has any innate superiority to any other. Every atheist is free to adopt any methodology they wish to fulfill their ends. Atheists have no restraints upon them when it comes to adaptations in the way they operate because there is no absolute standard under which they must operate.

Atheists are free and unrestrained in adapting any and all techniques and standards to achieve their goals. They can appear religious as needed, compassionate as needed, charitable as needed, cooperative as needed, etc, etc, etc. If none of these things happen to serve their goals they can abandoned them whenever they wish. An atheist can simply operate any way they wish and utilize whatever slight of hand is necessary to hide ulterior motives.

I am not saying that any particular atheists are doing these things. I am arguing that atheists have nothing to restrain them from doing what they wish except the limits of their own abilities to make things work out in their favor.

Please show me where I’m wrong on this.

You asked about how I view psychopaths. I do not think that psychopaths are possessed. It is possible, that some are, but I’m not in any position to know any such thing. I believe that psychopaths are different from you and I. The psychiatric community would tell us that they have a mental disorder. This may be as good an explanation as any. Sociopaths and psychopaths run a gamut of behaviors. I did not introduce them into this topic to make any kind of judgment upon the behavior itself. I merely introduced them into the discussion to demonstrate a point.

Their success in what they do is the basis of my point. Their success at what they do simply blows away all of your claims concerning the necessity of cooperation. They are the extreme example of people that do things that society condemns. Yet even the might of an entire society is frequently powerless to stop them. Some of them go through life without getting caught and they go completely unpunished. They are total rogues in every way, and many of their behaviors are extremely destructive. Do they need cooperation? Does cooperation suit them or their goals? Do they need societies values and rules? No, no, and no!

And if there is no God and no higher set of moral principles than those of the individual or the state, then who is to say that the principles and values of the psychopath have less validity than the arbitrary values of others. If the answer comes down to what society imposes than we have no answer at all. The values and rules of the society are only as good as the enforcement because it would simply come down to a matter of power; in that case might makes right.

 

[Pax]

Hello Pax

The fact is that two thirds of the world’s population is not Christians.

WHY? Just as Atheist, they do not find enough evidence to make them believe that Christianity is true.

This is no numbers game at all, just facts. If there was enough evidence, the whole world would be Christians.

les

It appears that you do want engage in a numbers game. Now most of the world’s population accepts some religion. Atheists are an extremely small minority. Apparently, there is enough evidence for most people to believe, at least imperfectly. What does that say about atheism in your numbers game?

 

[_A]

Pax:

I can hardly believe that you cannot see the obvious. Do you really believe that Bill Gates built Microsoft into its position of domination within the industry by following your cooperative prescriptions?

I wonder if he did it alone…quote from wiki answers

http://site.wikianswers.com/templates/images/qbar_q.gif How many employees does Microsoft have?

**In: **Microsoft Corporation

** Answer **

As of April 2007, Microsoft (the company Bill Gates founded) employed approximately 79,000 people.

Bill Gates did not build Microsoft alone, and it would take a major act of blindness to think he did.

Pax:

Do you really think that leaders are such because they fall into your mold of cooperation? Do you really believe that Mao became successful and rose to unite and rule communist China by cooperation? Do you really think that Donald Trump got where he is by following your cooperation theory? The answer is a resounding “NO!”

None of these men have had their success alone. You might want to think so, but that doesn’t make it so.

Pax:

Your view is silly. You have simply chosen a value system that you happen to prefer. It is only a personal choice on your part because it seems to satisfy your own life and preconceived ideas. There is empirical data that shows that cooperation works for “most people.” The problem is that this data is not helpful in determining what is the best and most effective system for all people. Likewise, the system is only best for those that need it.

Again, you have failed to bring a single example of someone who has major success without cooperation. Keep trying, or concede the point, as you wish.

Pax:

The most gifted and able don’t need to limit themselves to cooperation. Their vision is greater than your limited view. Their daring and risk taking is greater than yours. You simply don’t share what they have and neither do I. That does not make your preference for cooperation, which is suitable for most people, better than another. I will say it again. “Those that are gifted, sufficiently intelligent, and assertive will simply game your system of cooperation.” This is why some people wind up with all the marbles and others have very little.

It still means that the best chance of success is through cooperation, for the overwhelming majority of people.
Oh, and I have still not seen an example of a successful non-cooperator.

Pax:

Atheists are free and unrestrained in adapting any and all techniques and standards to achieve their goals. They can appear religious as needed, compassionate as needed, charitable as needed, cooperative as needed, etc, etc, etc. If none of these things happen to serve their goals they can abandoned them whenever they wish. An atheist can simply operate any way they wish and utilize whatever slight of hand is necessary to hide ulterior motives.

Again, I think this is how you would see yourself if you lacked a belief in an invisible man in the sky.
It does not describe me.

Pax:

I am not saying that any particular atheists are doing these things. I am arguing that atheists have nothing to restrain them from doing what they wish except the limits of their own abilities to make things work out in their favor.

…and so religion makes this less likely? Impossible? Have you evidence to support this, or are the religious just as often full of baloney as anyone else?
Their success in what they do is the basis of my point. Their success at what they do simply blows away all of your claims concerning the necessity of cooperation. They are the extreme example of people that do things that society condemns. Yet even the might of an entire society is frequently powerless to stop them. Some of them go through life without getting caught and they go completely unpunished. They are total rogues in every way, and many of their behaviors are extremely destructive. Do they need cooperation? Does cooperation suit them or their goals? Do they need societies values and rules? No, no, and no!Where is the example of the psychopath who has an independent success?

Pax:

And if there is no God and no higher set of moral principles than those of the individual or the state, then who is to say that the principles and values of the psychopath have less validity than the arbitrary values of others.

The cooperating majority.

Pax:

If the answer comes down to what society imposes than we have no answer at all. The values and rules of the society are only as good as the enforcement because it would simply come down to a matter of power; in that case might makes right.

To a certain extent, this is true, but even the mighty have to keep paying attention to the world around them. Even a dictator with absolute power in his realm can not revoke the law of gravity.

It appears that you do want engage in a numbers game. Now most of the world’s population accepts some religion. Atheists are an extremely small minority. Apparently, there is enough evidence for most people to believe, at least imperfectly. What does that say about atheism in your numbers game?

It says that a small minority have not decided on *any * version of invented gods.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Interesting though, that most people if they do indeed to that rational methodical search that you describe tend to end up in the religious beliefs of their parents.

I’m not so sure about this, at least as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. I have seen all kinds of characters walk through the doors of Mother Church: many different cultures, many different walks of life, many different religious/non-religious upbringings.

Why has nobody here been able to bring forth any actual evidence? You mentioned before in your (what I was assuming was somewhat tongue in cheek) post that the atheists will ignore any evidence that doesn’t fit with their preconceptions, but I’d like to think I’ve discussed anything discussable that has been brought forth (at great length sometimes) in a rational and reasonably fair way.

Tongue was in cheek, and wink was in eye. But I still say there’s some truth to it.

The only thing that I haven’t done as yet is put a book about that eucharistic miracle that was mentioned (because when I asked for a book recommendation on the subject nobody gave me one) on my wishlist and also I have not yet purchased that “Life of Christ” book you recommended, or the “Handbook of Christian Apologetics” that Pax recommended. The reason for this is that I am still finishing up a backlog of other books I’ve bought and also, those two books only seem available from american sellers on amazon.co.uk, I’ve been waiting for them to show up from UK sellers. The “Life of Christ” book has now done so and is likey to be in my next set of purchases.

If you are looking to save some cash, you may be able to find “Life of Christ” for a better price in your local Catholic bookstore or Church (if you dare to set foot in there). The original reason I recommended this book was in response to your “Why the heck?” question about the Crucifixion. I thought it might help you understand.

I just want some evidence that doesn’t evaporate into the ether just before it is shown to me.

You gotta be quick, Phooney!

 

[lkddav]

Hi Les,

I understand you contend there is no evidence for any God. Why isn’t the whole world atheist?

AoG

I said there was not enough evidence for the Christian God. If the evidence was enough everyone would be Christians.

When Christians start scrutinizing their own god like they do everyone else’s, they’ll become Atheists.

les

 

[lkddav]

It appears that you do want engage in a numbers game.

Actually no, it appears you want to instead of just giving me a straight answer.

Now most of the world’s population accepts some religion.

True. My point, as you well know, was they are not your religion. They do not accept YOUR God. Why Not ?

Atheists are an extremely small minority. Apparently, there is enough evidence for most people to believe, at least imperfectly.

Everyone who is not a Christian is an Atheist as far as a Christian is concerned. They don’t believe in Your God. Why Not?

What does that say about atheism in your numbers game?

That says to me that myself and two thirds of the rest of the planet don’t believe in your God.

Why? Not enough evidence.

les

 

[Pax]

I wonder if he did it alone…quote from wiki answers
Bill Gates did not build Microsoft alone, and it would take a major act of blindness to think he did.None of these men have had their success alone. You might want to think so, but that doesn’t make it so.Again, you have failed to bring a single example of someone who has major success without cooperation. Keep trying, or concede the point, as you wish.It still means that the best chance of success is through cooperation, for the overwhelming majority of people.
Oh, and I have still not seen an example of a successful non-cooperator.
Again, I think this is how you would see yourself if you lacked a belief in an invisible man in the sky.
It does not describe me…and so religion makes this less likely? Impossible? Have you evidence to support this, or are the religious just as often full of baloney as anyone else?
Their success in what they do is the basis of my point. Their success at what they do simply blows away all of your claims concerning the necessity of cooperation. They are the extreme example of people that do things that society condemns. Yet even the might of an entire society is frequently powerless to stop them. Some of them go through life without getting caught and they go completely unpunished. They are total rogues in every way, and many of their behaviors are extremely destructive. Do they need cooperation? Does cooperation suit them or their goals? Do they need societies values and rules? No, no, and no! Where is the example of the psychopath who has an independent success?The cooperating majority. To a certain extent, this is true, but even the mighty have to keep paying attention to the world around them. Even a dictator with absolute power in his realm can not revoke the law of gravity.It says that a small minority have not decided on any version of invented gods.

You are attempting to employ a strawman argument. I never claimed that Bill Gates built Microsoft alone. Please show me where I have made such an absurd claim. Please read and respond to what I did say.

You have not refuted anything that I did say. The successful use and manipulate. The successful lead. The successful do things outside of the box. The successful see opportunities and seize them to their advantage. The successful are those that compete better than others. They compete better by using cooperators. The compete more effectively by cooperating when and only when it is to their advantage. They defect when it is to their advantage.

If you disagree with what I am really saying then it is likely that you fail to have a realistic grasp of our competitive world. There are only a few things that keep some people from overwhelming most everyone else in this competitive struggle. Among these are societies restrictions and religious restrictions. An atheist is under no ultimate authority that necessarily compels him/her to follow the values and mores of either society or religion. A clever, intelligent, and resourceful atheist can use this freedom from restraint to manipulate the system to his/her advantage.

The ultimate criteria to measure whether this person is successful rests in the level of success the person achieves in arriving at their personal goals. The “how” they do it is only limited by their own ability and resources in successfully circumventing or manipulating the restrictions and hurdles that stand in their way. There is nothing to stop them from doing as they please if they are gifted enough to “make it work out.” There is no ultimate standard that says that what they choose is good, bad, or indifferent. They can decide for themselves which values are acceptable and they can thumb their nose at the rest, as long as they don’t get caught in a bind.

Again, please prove me wrong.

 

[phooney]

Pax, it’s very late, so I can’t go into this in depth. I suggest you look up “Game Theory” and “The Prisoners Dilema” I imagine there are reasonably concise descriptions of these available online.

Yes, Bill Gates led Microsoft in the beginning, but he cooperated in many different kinds of interactions with colleagues, employees, suppliers, business partners, etc. I’m sure there are countless examples of him being ruthless to competition, but of course it’s nothing they wouldn’t have done to him if they were in his position. This tit for tat mostly cooperative strategy that is described in game theory has it’s equivalent in evolutionary biology, my old friend reciprocal altruism.

You’re going to have to come to terms with the fact that a lack of an objective moral dictator doesn’t equivocate to ‘arbitrary morality’

Really sorry I couldn’t explain this better… I need sleep and I hope I haven’t missed your point entirely.

 

[_A]

You are attempting to employ a strawman argument. I never claimed that Bill Gates built Microsoft alone. Please show me where I have made such an absurd claim. Please read and respond to what I did say.

I asked you for an example of a success on par with a few I mentioned. You named Bill Gates,(who had tremendous success through cooperation)

You have not refuted anything that I did say. The successful use and manipulate. The successful lead. The successful do things outside of the box. The successful see opportunities and seize them to their advantage. The successful are those that compete better than others. They compete better by using cooperators. The compete more effectively by cooperating when and only when it is to their advantage. They defect when it is to their advantage.

Who are ‘they’? What are their successes? I would like to measure them against the cooperative achievements I mentioned.

If you disagree with what I am really saying then it is likely that you fail to have a realistic grasp of our competitive world. There are only a few things that keep some people from overwhelming most everyone else in this competitive struggle. Among these are societies restrictions and religious restrictions. An atheist is under no ultimate authority that necessarily compels him/her to follow the values and mores of either society or religion. A clever, intelligent, and resourceful atheist can use this freedom from restraint to manipulate the system to his/her advantage.

So can a resourceful Catholic. There are many examples. I am an atheist who has explained his reasons for doing this to you, yet you still stuff a straw atheist and suggest he is immoral.
I have reasons for behaving the way I do, it sounds like the only reason you have is that your god is watching and threatening to punish you.

The ultimate criteria to measure whether this person is successful rests in the level of success the person achieves in arriving at their personal goals.The “how” they do it is only limited by their own ability and resources in successfully circumventing or manipulating the restrictions and hurdles that stand in their way. There is nothing to stop them from doing as they please if they are gifted enough to “make it work out.” There is no ultimate standard that says that what they choose is good, bad, or indifferent. They can decide for themselves which values are acceptable and they can thumb their nose at the rest, as long as they don’t get caught in a bind.

Again, please prove me wrong.

Prove what wrong, exactly? You are saying that atheists might be immoral without a god watching over them? I can show you that those who believe have as much chance to be immoral.
I say that if the only reason you are following a moral code is that you fear the wrath of your god, I would be a little frightened if you stopped believing.
If you discovered that there have been many gods, and all have been fiction (at best), then you would just rob, rape and pillage any time you could get away with it, is that correct?

 

[Pax]

I asked you for an example of a success on par with a few I mentioned. You named Bill Gates,(who had tremendous success through cooperation)
Who are ‘they’? What are their successes? I would like to measure them against the cooperative achievements I mentioned.So can a resourceful Catholic. There are many examples. I am an atheist who has explained his reasons for doing this to you, yet you still stuff a straw atheist and suggest he is immoral.
I have reasons for behaving the way I do, it sounds like the only reason you have is that your god is watching and threatening to punish you.
Prove what wrong, exactly? You are saying that atheists might be immoral without a god watching over them? I can show you that those who believe have as much chance to be immoral.
I say that if the only reason you are following a moral code is that you fear the wrath of your god, I would be a little frightened if you stopped believing.
If you discovered that there have been many gods, and all have been fiction (at best), then you would just rob, rape and pillage any time you could get away with it, is that correct?

You still create and attack the strawman. Read and react only to what I actually said and do not add to it. I have not said that atheists act in a particular way. I even made that point in a prior post. I am pointing out that they do not have to follow any particular moral code because all moral codes are arbitrary if there is no God. Likewise, I have not said or suggested what I might or might not do if I became an atheist. Did I suggest that I would go about robbing, raping, and pillaging anytime I could get away with it? Did I say that the average atheist is doing such a thing? This is where you go totally strawman.

I have not created a straw atheist, and I made the point that I was not suggesting that any particular atheist would be doing such things. Don’t confuse the issue with this kind of nonsense.

What I am telling you is very simple and quite obvious. I am telling you that an atheist is under no moral obligation to behave according to your particular atheistic standards, or my standards, or any other standards. All man made standards are arbitrary. You might argue that historical experience educates us as to what is practical and the most workable, and that standards will emerge from this soup of social interaction. Please keep in mind that this soup is a mix of people with varying abilities, objectives, and reference points. The output of this soup is a mix of incompetance, mediocrity, and perhaps some excellence as well as other stuff.

The soup and its output does not automatically determine what the gifted have to do, can do, or can’t do. If it did everybody would be acting accordingly and that just isn’t happening. Every society has its own soup and every society is different. What makes one better than the other? It’s all arbitrary because there is no ultimate standard if there is no God.

Competition is the most obvious example of how individuals will maximize their gains. Individuals will use everything in their repetoire, including cooperation when needed, to compete. The atheist, if gifted and daring, “can” compete in ways that “faithful” religious people cannot. This does not mean that atheists are committing armed robbery, rape, and other blatant crimes. Most atheists are not doing these things, but I see no logical reason why an atheist could not decide to do something that the average American might believe is either wrong or distasteful. I see no reason why the atheist would have to feel even a twinge of guilt in these cases. Moreover, a gifted atheist of high intelligence might find some of our social conventions and practices to be silly and unnecessary. If this person could break some or many rules/laws to reach their goals without getting caught and punished, then why shouldn’t he/she do it? If their actions really had no measurable negative effect on others, then why should they opt to follow the rules?

Abortion was at one time against the law in this country and was considered a serious evil. Now, it is legally permissable and many blow it off as no big deal. Which position is correct? Society has flip flopped on this because ideas, rules, and concepts of right and wrong are in flux. The rules are arbitrary and depend upon the whim of the societal soup. The atheist can choose to be pro-life in the abortion issue, but most do not. This example illustrates what I’m getting at when it comes to morals, standards, and laws. They change because they are arbitrary.

The gifted, daring, and knowledgeable person that is an atheist has the freedom to pick whatever arbitrary standard that man can conjure up. The gifted atheist must excercise sound judgments in manipulating things and navigating through the social maze, but there is nothing to prevent an atheist from making almost any choice they wish to make as long as they are competant enough to make it work out. Once again, do not twist what I just said. Give me the reasons and logic to show that I’m wrong about what I did say.

So far you have not done so.

 

[_A]

I am pointing out that they do not have to follow any particular moral code because all moral codes are arbitrary if there is no God.

Those who are religious also do not have to follow any particular moral code.

I am telling you that an atheist is under no moral obligation to behave according to your particular atheistic standards, or my standards, or any other standards.

That is correct. It is correct for every person, I would think.

All man made standards are arbitrary.

As are all the man-made gods.

You might argue that historical experience educates us as to what is practical and the most workable, and that standards will emerge from this soup of social interaction. Please keep in mind that this soup is a mix of people with varying abilities, objectives, and reference points. The output of this soup is a mix of incompetance, mediocrity, and perhaps some excellence as well as other stuff.

Yup. You might get away with anything. Even knowing that, I don’t do it, for the reasons I mentioned. How many people fly the catholic colors when it is comfy, then hoist the jolly roger when it suits them?

TIt’s all arbitrary because there is no ultimate standard if there is no God.

All the gods are invented by men, too, so I guess it is ALL arbitrary.
Except for that bit of evolutionary theory which phooney was able to paraphrase better than I was able.

Competition is the most obvious example of how individuals will maximize their gains. Individuals will use everything in their repetoire, including cooperation when needed, to compete.

Right! With the memory that humans have, that means that if you are known for cooperation, you are likely to get more offers of cooperation than if you are known for defecting.

The atheist, if gifted and daring, “can” compete in ways that “faithful” religious people cannot.

Then there are not any faithful. Everyone, if gifted and daring can ignore divine writ. You do it whenever you work on the sabbath (if you do). Ditto if you work on the Jewish sabbath.

This does not mean that atheists are committing armed robbery, rape, and other blatant crimes. Most atheists are not doing these things,

Most people are not.

but I see no logical reason why an atheist could not decide to do something that the average American might believe is either wrong or distasteful.

Are you trying to suggest that the average American is better than ‘an atheist’? I think several Americans (including me, if you meant North Americans) would be offended by this choice of phrasing.

I see no reason why the atheist would have to feel even a twinge of guilt in these cases.

What does it matter how he feels?

Moreover, a gifted atheist of high intelligence might find some of our social conventions and practices to be silly and unnecessary.

I sure do. Like chopping the skin off the genitals of infants. Silly and unnecessary at least.

If this person could break some or many rules/laws to reach their goals without getting caught and punished, then why shouldn’t he/she do it?

That is the question which I answered already with my clumsy cooperators/defectors analogy, and phooney answered much better. Why do you keep not hearing the answer? Is it because you don’t ‘get’ some part of it?

Abortion was at one time against the law in this country and was considered a serious evil. Now, it is legally permissable and many blow it off as no big deal. Which position is correct?

Well, since we don’t hold slaves, I think it would be wrong to force a woman to term. Since I am unwilling to force a woman to nurture a baby properly (it would require 24 hour restraint in many cases), I can only conclude that they ought to be allowed to have control over their own body. If someone thinks the aborted fetus is worth saving, go ahead, but I won’t force motherhood on someone just because they carelessly got pregnant (for example).

Society has flip flopped on this because ideas, rules, and concepts of right and wrong are in flux. The rules are arbitrary and depend upon the whim of the societal soup. The atheist can choose to be pro-life in the abortion issue, but most do not. This example illustrates what I’m getting at when it comes to morals, standards, and laws. They change because they are arbitrary.

Also, ethics change with technology. I don’t know what you are getting at, though. I think that our ethics are improving, and will continue to, because of change.
Laws that can’t change are doomed to a small piece of history.

 

[Pax]

Those who are religious also do not have to follow any particular moral code.

If we “intend” to be faithful then we do have a particular moral code to follow.

All the gods are invented by men, too, so I guess it is ALL arbitrary.

Thank you for the concession. Atheists are, indeed, free to pick among any and all standards before them. I appreciate the fact that you have the standards that you do.

Now that you have positively asserted that all gods are invented by men, I challenge you to prove it.

Then there are not any faithful. Everyone, if gifted and daring can ignore divine writ.

Not without consequences…no one outwits God.

Are you trying to suggest that the average American is better than ‘an atheist’? I think several Americans (including me, if you meant North Americans) would be offended by this choice of phrasing.

You are creating a tangential strawman argument. The inference you’ve drawn is simply not true or pertinent to the points I’ve made.

Why do you keep not hearing the answer? Is it because you don’t ‘get’ some part of it?

I do not find any of the responses to be compelling.

Well, since we don’t hold slaves, I think it would be wrong to force a woman to term. Since I am unwilling to force a woman to nurture a baby properly (it would require 24 hour restraint in many cases), I can only conclude that they ought to be allowed to have control over their own body. If someone thinks the aborted fetus is worth saving, go ahead, but I won’t force motherhood on someone just because they carelessly got pregnant (for example).Also, ethics change with technology. I don’t know what you are getting at, though.

This is pretty sloppy thinking. We weren’t holding slaves prior to Roe vs. Wade. Likewise, having a baby has nothing to with slavery. Preventing the murder of an unborn baby has nothing to do with slavery. Likewise, this is not an issue of a woman simply having control over her own body. It is not her body that is being aborted…it is the body of another human being, and it is another human being that is being murdered.

Likewise, saving an aborted fetus is a nonsequiteur…you can’t save a dead person…they are already dead.

So “ethics change with technology” and this is a good thing or what? Just wait until our Frankenstein style scientists unleash some human chimeras just because they have the technology. Things are getting real ugly in my opinion.

I think that our ethics are improving, and will continue to, because of change.

They are changing but not for the better. I see no evidence of general improvement.

Laws that can’t change are doomed to a small piece of history.

Change is what dooms our current laws to a small piece of history. The U.S. Constitution has been abused, manipulated, and altered by our courts. The liberals love this and contend that the Constitution is a “living document.” The conservatives do not like the changes that have been made by liberal interpretations and they believe that such things cause the Constitution to be a “dead letter.”

 

[phooney]

So unchanging rules in an unstoppably ever-changing society are the key?

 

[Pax]

That seems like a succinct oversimplification that fails to conform to the material content of my posts.

 

[_A]

That seems like a succinct oversimplification that fails to conform to the material content of my posts.

…and THIS seems a lot like ignoring phooneys question.

 

[Pax]

You would be correct if phooney had only formulated an appropriate question.

 

[Pax]

A,

My posts do not suggest in any way that change is never necessary. There are, however, things that should never be changed. Truth is not a relative thing. Truth is what it is, and it is a description of the facts. The truth is that murder is wrong. If murder was wrong yesterday, and it is wrong today, then I see no reason why it would not be wrong in the future.

Do you get my drift?

 

[_A]

A,

My posts do not suggest in any way that change is never necessary. There are, however, things that should never be changed. Truth is not a relative thing. Truth is what it is, and it is a description of the facts. The truth is that murder is wrong. If murder was wrong yesterday, and it is wrong today, then I see no reason why it would not be wrong in the future.

Do you get my drift?

So you are saying that murder is always wrong?
Please define murder, because this sounds like nonsense to me…