There is no natural law... so kindly DROP it

[soccerdad57]

It seems to me that the Atheist has the problem of claiming to be able to prove or disprove truth and reality by what is evident to our immediate senses which is based on his founding and unproven priciple that all that is true and real is able to be discerned by our immediate senses at our discretion (when WE will it). This is simply put his belief upon which he rests his entire proposition that unless something is proven by science it must not be real. But the underlying principle that all truth and reality is knowable by our immediate senses at our discretion is itself merely HIS BELIEF! - He can’t prove that So it seems a little ingenious to me that nobody else is allowed to have any beliefs of their own simply because they have not been proven by the scientific method - which is based on its own underlying beliefs and unproven assumptions! - Vote how you want but people of faith rightfully say - HEY WE DESERVE A PLACE AT THE DEBATE TABLE TOO!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I do think some things are over and beyond the facts of reality. Science is always discovering more and more things but still does not know everything, and everything is God. I think science will be like the tower of Babel in that respect. Why would God allow human beings to be vain enough to build a tower that reaches the heavens? God lets us know what he lets us know. Everything else is faith.

I do believe in natural law. And I do believe there is evil in this good world. If we weren’t effected by original sin, there’d be no need for war, conflict, or even this argument right here. There’d be none of it, because in everyone, even in the most faithful of Christians, there still is that rebelliousness. We must all keep praying and pray hard.

It has always seemed to me that if you removed everything labeled Sinful from a person, all the pride, ambition, lust, jealousy, ungodly attachments and thoughts, etc., you would be left with little more than an empty vessel. A sort of dull organic robot, with no thoughts, desires, or motivations of its own.

This is the ideal for human beings?

 

[tonyrey]

It seems to me that the Atheist has the problem of claiming to be able to prove or disprove truth and reality by what is evident to our immediate senses which is based on his founding and unproven principle that all that is true and real is able to be discerned by our immediate senses at our discretion (when WE will it). This is simply put his belief upon which he rests his entire proposition that unless something is proven by science it must not be real. But the underlying principle that all truth and reality is knowable by our immediate senses at our discretion is itself merely HIS BELIEF! - He can’t prove that

The principle itself is intangible and cannot be observed by the senses!

 

[soccerdad57]

It has always seemed to me that if you removed everything labeled Sinful from a person, all the pride, ambition, lust, jealousy, ungodly attachments and thoughts, etc., you would be left with little more than an empty vessel. A sort of dull organic robot, with no thoughts, desires, or motivations of its own.

This is the ideal for human beings?

You didn’t respond directly to the poster in this reply because by doing so you would have to admit that that which you discern the truth - science- is itself based on unproven assumptions about reality and what we can know at our discretion. This is what you you choose to believe - thats ok - but it is simply an unproven belief you have which is the exact charge that you levy against people of faith - WE ACCEPT THAT WHICH WE CANNOT PROVE - SOUND FAMILIAR?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

fhansen

**I understand, but the ability to learn a moral code is different than one already written in our consciences, no? To learn the code simply implies that we might accept whatever’s being taught. The ability to learn would be innate but not the content. **

The ability to learn would be innate. The specific content, to do good and do no evil, is also innate. Beyond that, reason, since it is innate, would help us to learn the specific content of right and wrong. Reason would not tell us to do evil and do no good unless reason had been twisted out of its natural inclination to those perverse ends.

Reason (common sense) tells us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. That is the natural content of morality. The unnatural content of immorality would be to do unto others before they do it unto us. Those who follow the natural law are more likely to survive and prosper than those who follow the unnatural law.

The paramount law of our biological nature is to survive and prosper. **That is why homosexuality, for example, is against the natural law … it goes against reproduction and favors death by various and sundry diseases. **So do drug abuse, alcoholism, prostitution, homicide, suicide, abortion, etc. go against the content of the natural law that says survive and prosper.

However, there is a supernatural law that transcends the natural law. It consists of preaching love so powerful that you would lay down your life for a friend. The supernatural law trumps the natural law.

Actually lesbians are much less likely to get STDs than homosexual men, heterosexual men, or straight women. Its because the fluid transfer (e.g. the giving and receiving of semen) that occurs among the all the other groups doesn’t effect then.

Gay men are at (relatively) higher risk of HIV and other STDs because their exchanging so much in the way of bodily fluids. Not because straight people have some sort of magical God-given resistance or something.

 

[soccerdad57]

The principle itself is intangible and cannot be observed by the senses!

AMEN!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Originally Posted by Acapiteadcalcem View Post
I don’t see belief in supernatural causes and being superstitious as being synonymous. Ergo…

Right. It is a superstition that if a black cat crosses your path, you will have bad luck.

But this principle is found nowhere in the Bible that I know of. So superstition simply means that you draw a conclusion without evidence. There may be religious or secular superstitions, as when someone says there is no God just because scientific evidence is lacking.

When Democritus argued the existence of atoms, he was called superstitious, believing in things invisible. The people who called him superstitious were also superstitious (unreasonable), because they made the claim that nothing invisible could exist. Today we know who was really superstitious and who was not.

Angry Atheist

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Then where is the extraordinary proof that there is no extraordinary being called God?

You can’t even begin to find it, for the simple reason that God cannot be found at the end of a telescope or under a microscope, or visiting you up front and personal, which might be your idea of extraordinary proof?

Those who have found God can only know Him in their hearts as well as in their heads. If a person closes his heart to God, it’s obvious he is also closing his head. So no extraordinary proof is even possible to offer the atheist.

Not even the appeal to him that he is no more infallible than he thinks the pope is. He does think of himself as infallible, or he would not be an atheist.

 

[Spock]

However, as they say in the movies, a rose by any other name…

A very dumb saying. If you point to a “rose” and say: “look, what a beautiful tulip”, then all you did was spread confusion.

I already stated it is that which is discerned, mind independent and universal and accepted as the norm.

Which is an empty sentence. As they say: “the devil is in the details”.

The norm, of course is not about one single behaviour, but refers to many different behaviours, the sum of which constitutes human nature.

Again, specifics? Don’t try to wiggle out. Can you get into the details or not? What is “human nature”?

Tell that to the scientists, shrinks and philosophers who study it.

Names and disciplines?

Are vyou saying cannibalism was a universal human behaviour?

It was an accepted custom.

You are again trying to generalise from the particular. It doesn’t work. By the way, ancient Egypt is a good example of one of those failed empires I mentioned earlier.

They were quite prosperous for a few millenia. But the point is that in some societes, and for a specific timeframe the inbreeding was considered normal and acceptable. It is a clear proof, that the nebulous “human nature” is compatible with “marrying one’s sibling”. Which clearly refutes the assertion that there is a human nature, unchaning across the ages.

You mean they sold LSD in 1911?!

LSD was first synthesized in 1938. However, opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine, hasish were all readily available in the drug stores all up until 1905, when the first drug laws were enacted. Opium and morphine were widely used. Cocaine was a “wonder drug”. Strangely, there was no widespread drug use, most people consumed them responsibly.

Divorve is also not accepted by all people in all societies, so until we can get some stats on the subject, I’d not hasten to say it is universally accepted.

You are joking. No one says that it was accepted by ALL the people in ALL socities. What kind of nonsense it that? Is there anything that was accepted by ALL the people in ALL societies? I don’t think so.

So, are human’s capable of morphing into something not human? Could it not be the case that there are certain traits that todays humans share even with their ancient ancestors?

Biological traits, mostly (but not fully). But you were talking about acceptable human behavior. Changing the subject again? So typical…

How about basic survival instincts, like the will to live? We know certain people kill themselves, but does that mean the will to live is not universal?

The “will to live” is hardly specific to the humans.

Get down to the details. Show me what that nebulous “human nature” is. And specifically, explain how the “active contraception” is somehow a “perversion” of this human nature. If you answer this, I will be interested. If you do not answer, I am not interested in seeing more nonsensical generalities. The ball is in your court. (And I am not holding my breath.)

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Clearly not.

By contrast, if a particular lump of rock lost a molecule it would remain a rock, the exact same type of rock it was before – just reduced in size. Therefore the number of molecules is not essential to something’s classification as a rock while it’s atomic structure clearly is.

I suppose it depends on the exact cow you’re talking about, but membership in the *bos *genus would seem to suffice.

Not quite. The essence of a thing is the basis on which we classify it. It is not itself the class.

Which is why of course I’m speaking imprecisely when I say, as above, that the essence of a cow is its membership in the *bos *genus. What I mean is that whatever it is that causes things to be classified as a member of the bos genus is what is essential to their being cows.

So classification, at least in a biological sense, is sometimes arbitrary. This does not mean essences don’t exist.

Likewise the distinction between “red” and “orange” on a color spectrum is difficult, perhaps impossible, to p(name removed by moderator)oint. This does not mean that there is no such thing as “red” or “orange.”

That it is a necessarily vague definition is irrelevant. If there a billion classes of things then it follows that there are at least a billion distinguishing features of them, and the only thing they share in common is that they are said to distinguish things – therefore “that without which X would be not-X” is the most precise we can get when talking about “essences” in the abstract sense.

Again, this does not mean that there is no such thing as an essence. Or do you really believe there is no basis for distinguishing a man from a starfish? Or a potato from a skyscraper?

Because the unitive derives from the procreative. Sex is unitive BECAUSE it is procreative.

This is why it is called the REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM and not the PLEASURE SYSTEM.

And yet sex has a unitive aspect to it, hence the post-orgasmic release of hormones associated with love and bonding, and hence the notorious difficulty of navigating noncommittal “friends with benefits” arrangements.

Necessary for what? As a means of raising children? Of course not.

*Morally *it *is *necessary – because the procreative end of the sex act does not conclude at orgasm.

Waste elimination is not a sexual act and therefore hardly involves the sexual faculty. Like the kids say nowadays, duh.

To use the sexual faculty in an illicit manner is to employ it so as to frustrate the natural end toward which it is ordered – e.g., using a condom, masturbating, withdrawal, etc.

Hello? I am not talking about a state of *ontological possibility *but of moral imperative.

If it were impossible to use the sexual faculty illicitly then all this talk about sin would be rather meaningless, no?

You realize natural law does not require that every act culminate in conception, but merely that it be used in a manner consistent with the end of procreation? Again, you should really do your homework before mouthing off about topics concerning which you’re very clearly ignorant.

I am often amused when I hear about doctrines delevoped by unmarried celibate males concerning what is natural for sex and marriage (how would they know? certainly not from personal experience I assume)

 

[You]

So its better to accept a bad argument than simply admit we don’t know

I don’t know too many catholics who know how reality was created, but everyone knows what is in this created reality. You have your fluffy kittens; your angry atheists who hate imaginary beings; your people who can see good and love it; see bad and hate it; you have a mind that turns to catholic answers forums; you have an ongoing search for the answers to reality; you have mysterious qualities of beauty, llove, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. These things are also part of this reality and they also came from where this reality came from. These qualities along with the physical reality of nature describe the qualities and nature of the creative source of the universe. And these qualities describe a creator.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Sin is not “just another religious concept”. Sin is the violation of a moral standard. Moral standards is a human concept, not a religious concept.

Christianity is based on facts, not superstition, so your thinning veiled claim of religious superstition is not appreciated.

What facts?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Those who oppose natural law are just like the atheists who oppose the idea of God , they are all sublimely superstitious.

Superstitious simply means you believe something without evidence for it.

There is certainly less evidence there is neither a God nor any natural law than there is evidence there are both.

Give me one argument there is no God and one argument there is no natural law.

The only argument you cannot use is that they are both superstitions. That is a cop-out.

I don’t think you understand what these words mean.

 

[davidv]

I am often amused when I hear about doctrines delevoped by unmarried celibate males concerning what is natural for sex and marriage (how would they know? certainly not from personal experience I assume)

Why should you be bemused? Non-cancer patients develop cancer treatment
regimens. Is their work called into question based on their not being cancer patients. Yours is a fallacious argument - not very amusing.

Is personal experience the only way to acquire knowledge?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I sense anger in these posts. And when there is anger, I doubt the arguement.

You amuse me.

So getting angry means that you’re automatically wrong

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Ok, let’s call a spade a spade.

**Natural Law is a metaphor for Human Nature, observed, discerned and accepted as the “norm”. No Natural Law, no human nature. From the discerned norms of human behaviour, normative ethics is founded and from observing what is, we get what should be. Is and ought. The discerned normative aspects of human nature must be universal and mind independent to be termed ‘normative’ according to Natural Law ethics. **
. Plain enough for you?

If you disagree, then explain why a Godless Aristotle discerned a Natural Law and so too the Stoics. After all, it was they who “discovered” the uniform, coherent, cogent thing called Natural Law in the first place. Western civilisation was founded on it. The Catholic Church champions it. The consequences of not following the Natural Law are to be found in the long list of failed nation states, territories and whole empires who forgot its basic tenents. Oh and that’s not even considering the squillions of failed individuals who have failed to live by its ethical standards.

As someone once wrote, the Natural Law has a habit of burying its undertakers.

Puke on it and you thumb your nose at the very concept of human nature.

“Drop it” at your own peril.

The problem is your not defining Natural Law the way that the Catholic Church does.
To the hierarchy NL is far more than *the norm *that society is built around.

 

[Spock]

The problem is your not defining Natural Law the way that the Catholic Church does.
To the hierarchy NL is far more than *the norm *that society is built around.

Of course he does not. The trouble is that he is unwilling or maybe unable to elucidate upon his own definition. It’s all generalities, nothing else. I keep asking how does his version of “natural law” (human nature) lead to the idea that active contraception is somehow a “perversion” of human nature… neither he nor anyone else is willing pick up that particular “glove”. I wonder, why… or maybe not. It is so obvious.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

A very dumb saying. If you point to a “rose” and say: “look, what a beautiful tulip”, then all you did was spread confusion.

Which is an empty sentence. As they say: “the devil is in the details”.

Again, specifics? Don’t try to wiggle out. Can you get into the details or not? What is “human nature”?

Names and disciplines?

It was an accepted custom.

They were quite prosperous for a few millenia. But the point is that in some societes, and for a specific timeframe the inbreeding was considered normal and acceptable. It is a clear proof, that the nebulous “human nature” is compatible with “marrying one’s sibling”. Which clearly refutes the assertion that there is a human nature, unchaning across the ages.

LSD was first synthesized in 1938. However, opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine, hasish were all readily available in the drug stores all up until 1905, when the first drug laws were enacted. Opium and morphine were widely used. Cocaine was a “wonder drug”. Strangely, there was no widespread drug use, most people consumed them responsibly.

You are joking. No one says that it was accepted by ALL the people in ALL socities. What kind of nonsense it that? Is there anything that was accepted by ALL the people in ALL societies? I don’t think so.

Biological traits, mostly (but not fully). But you were talking about acceptable human behavior. Changing the subject again? So typical…

The “will to live” is hardly specific to the humans.

Get down to the details. Show me what that nebulous “human nature” is. And specifically, explain how the “active contraception” is somehow a “perversion” of this human nature. If you answer this, I will be interested. If you do not answer, I am not interested in seeing more nonsensical generalities. The ball is in your court. (And I am not holding my breath.)

Human nature is real and therefore a growing maturing reality individually as well within mankind through the ages…(just like everything else incuding faith)

Your arguement is not one piece, but a whole package of baloney, if human nature did not change you would argue that it is not real. Spock your playing games and you know it

.
Morality is inbuilt and is a mutually compatible reality which developes & is nurtured together with the social…The conscience is a moral compass which everyone has…

Reason is reflective by nature and on planet earth…thoughtlessness is ignorance.

This is basically boring spock…is there nothing else ? I gotta go to work and when I come back I wanna see something which is a little more educated…is that asking too much?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No more “clean” than other posters. You just need to read between the lines of what others post. I think they call it patience. Or is it maybe tolerance?

Good question. Especially how it was you who first used that adjective. It isn’t one I would have chosen, but perhaps the fact that you chose it is a reflection of your mindset. I’d have probably gone for ‘aphorism’.
Nothing at all. However, as they say in the movies, a rose by any other name…Well, we aint gonna make any progress until you not only read between the lines to better understand people, but also not until you learn to read accurately what others write. I already stated it is that which is discerned, mind independent and universal and accepted as the norm. The norm, of course is not about one single behaviour, but refers to many different behaviours, the sum of which constitutes human nature. Of course you already know that and you know I know you know, so if you want to call a spade a spade, stop playing childish games.

Tell that to the scientists, shrinks and philosophers who study it.Are vyou saying cannibalism was a universal human behaviour? Gee whiz, even Wiki tells you that isn’t so.You are again trying to generalise from the particular. It doesn’t work. By the way, ancient Egypt is a good example of one of those failed empires I mentioned earlier. Same mistake again. Now if Aristotle had followed your methodology, we’d be all up the creek without a paddle. You are not giving examples of behaviour which can ever be considered as “normative”. medieval Europe covers a very long period of history. Can you narrow it down a wee bit? After all, medieval Europe was totally catholic and was so right up until the Reformation. It seems you must have even more examples of aberrant behaviour tucked away in your head. You mean they sold LSD in 1911?! Now pull the other one… Haven’t you heard of annullments? This statement opens a can of worms. Just because something is widespread doesn’t mean it is “accepted”. There seems to be quite a hue and cry against the social harm being caused by the high divorce rates. Divorve is also not accepted by all people in all societies, so until we can get some stats on the subject, I’d not hasten to say it is universally accepted. You should also realise that divorce is a good example of natural Law ethics being abused. I wouldn’t know, but you seem to be suggesting that there was less love for certain family members back then. I find that hard to beleive.

Actually, the norms of behaviour always remain the norm. Whether people continue to adhere to them is another question. Like I said, the world is full of examples of failed empires and failed individulas…

So, are human’s capable of morphing into something not human? Could it not be the case that there are certain traits that todays humans share even with their ancient ancestors? How about basic survival instincts, like the will to live? We know certain people kill themselves, but does that mean the will to live is not universal?

Actually, if you want to put your cynical mindset to work productively, you might be able to figure out what the words actually mean, just as Aristotle did and the Stoics before him. Can you, for instance, put together a list of human traits which are indeed discernable as being universal? Come on, I bet you can.

The main problem with what you’re saying John is:
If people usually (or perhaps just frequently) do something else, how can a practice be considered a (human) norm?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

hello angry atheist. read my post carefully. I said find a culture in which every citizen accepts and loves bad rules as being good…
The Aztecs rulers had slaves/prisoners sacrificed. If every Aztec citizen accepted and loved human sacrifice you will need to show me the evidence for just that. Personally, I feel human sacrifice inspired dread into the Aztec citizen which helped the ruling classes build the empire. See below.
The Romans built colosseums and killed lots of people. In fact at its height the ‘games’ as they were sometimes called were on for over 200 days of the year, or every third day of the year prisoners, christians, animals would be slaughtered for amusement. They even had hot pastry sellers at the tops of the stands, like our hotdog sellers, so that the crowds would not miss the executions if they felt hungry.
Guess what, it was not long until the native roman population of rome became sickened with the carnage and the games were brought to an end.
Exceptions like mad emperors or evil Aztec priests won’t prove your idea that every citizen accepts and loves bad rules as being good any more than one psychopath in a hospital proves all patients are psychopaths.

I did read your post carefully, and its full of baseless assumptions and outright errors.

First, you have no way of knowing how the average Aztec felt, and are simply assuming that the average citizen of the empire had a problem with the human sacrifice that was a routine part of imperial business for them.

Secondly, the Roman bloodsports lasted for centuries (which most people would consider more than not long).

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The natural law in ethics consists of doing good and avoiding evil. Who believes this is not a natural moral law? Surely nature did not set down a law in us intending us to do evil and avoid good. Someone will say nature did not set down any laws at all. Then why do we profoundly feel that some actions are naturally lawful while other acts are unnaturally awful?