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

[AngryAtheist8]

just so. Do good and avoid evil.

That’s not an argument, that’s just a slogan.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m going to confession this Saturday.

Just felt like saying that.

-Tim-

Take my friend Harvey with you

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Did you understand the reference to the unfounded principle upon which science rests??

Yes, science cann’t prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Of course neither can anything else, so I don’t see why that should be considered a mark against science.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

What I said was that science itself trys to prove everything starting with the unproven principle, that all that is true and real is discernable to our immediate senses at our own discretion - as I said earlier, trying to prove God’s existence with the scientific method could be likened to trying to smell a rose with a telescope - science is the wrong tool to discover God! - don’t stop reading yet - you keep missing the point. You see science begins with an unproven priciple or belief - that which I already stated - you accept that belief because you say well if I can’t see it, hear it, taste touch or smell it - it must not be real because - here goes- only what is discernable to our immediate senses at our discretion is true and real but this is YOUR BELIEF! - which is fine - you can choose to believe what you cannot prove - as a man of faith myself - I don’t have a problem with that - but don’t be a hyprocrite when it comes to others having their own unproven beliefs-

So that’s your argument then?

That taking some things on faith is the same as taking everything (or virtually everything) on faith from some sort of psuedo-intellectual perspective

 

[John21652]

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

Well, you have either missed the point totally, or you are obfuscating. “A rose by any other name…” is understood by most people. A thing can be called whatever we choose to call it, but its essential character doesn’t change. Luckily, we having fairly standard naming conventions which lessen the confusion with regard to what things are. You should learn them.

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

You wrote that is response to me having written the sentence “I already stated it is that which is discerned, mind independent and universal and accepted as the norm.” I suggest you Google the meanings of the words “discerned”, “independent”, “universal”, “norm” and “accepted”. Then the sentence wont appear to be ‘empty’ to you.

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

For starters, read this Wikipedia entry
on Human Nature. After that, we can move onto something a little more in-depth and complicated, if you like.

Names and disciplines?

I have already given you names and disciplines. The Wiki article linked to above gives even more names and disciplines for you to explore. Like I said, some very famous philosophers, theologans, scientists and shrinks have devoted their lives to this study.
Do some homework and stop asking to be spoon fed all the time.

It was an accepted custom.

A ha, here we have a little breakthrough. You have managed to discern (don’t forget to look that word up!) that there is a certain class of behaviour that can be classified as “custom”. Now all you need to do is differentiate between custom and universally normative behaviour!

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.

Ancient Egypt is a classic example of one of those failed empires I mentioned earlier. They rotted from within. Your point, however, that “some societies” for a specific timeframe, carried on with a behaviour does not prove that behaviour to be universal, or universally accepted. Quite the contrary, in fact. Your “clear proof” is nothing other than an example of aberrant behaviour.

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.

And where did this all happen? All over the world? In every drug store? Are you saying it was universal behaviour?

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.

Wrong again. There are many aspects of human nature which are indeed common to all societies and across all time frames. Gee whiz, surely you can think of a few?!

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

Isn’t it the case that an aspect of human nature is to satisfy certain biological requirements? Are you suggesting otherwise? The topic is, as proposed by the definition you wanted discussed, is human nature. Biological aspects of human nature are indeed part of the topic, and are relevent to Natural Law, so know one is changing the subject. It’s just that you don’t understand the subject properly.

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

Now it is you who have changed the subject. I thought you wanted to discuss human nature. However, while we are here, natural Law does have an aspect to it which considers the fact that man is an intelligent and rational being that must exist in a natural world. That’s one of the starting points of Natural Law enquiry.

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.)

I am hoping that a good read of that Wiki reference I gave you will lead your enquiries into more fertile grounds. However, if specifics you want, then I will give you one.

The right to life is a very basic Natural Law tenent.

See if you can figure out why it is so.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

(theres a good clip to watch at the end of this post for everyone to enjoy)

Well its pretty clear this boring argument is over. The real question is what kind of creation is this when animals take little babies in and do the best they can to raise them…why\

why is man who is expected to have MORE mental ability and tools then a wolf, suggesting
that there is no natural law…God ect…if anything the incident shows a remarkable order which we are not even close to grasping… how many times do I have to say…

1. reason is reflective in nature… and in this world ( re those ferel kids…social exposure ect)
2. the social is required and a part of the whole human being and nurtures , develops all
3. human nature is a growing , changing reality, if not it would not be real.
4. we ALL have a moral compass in conscience…
   For those beautiful animals to take babies in, rather than killing and consuming is a beautiful thing which should inspire absolute humble regard for order in creation…

noticing all the science stuff going on …have a look at this clip members…this is the
world class atheist in his finest hour…a little peek in real life action and a nice way to
wind down a very pleasant day to be sure…enjoy:thumbsup:

youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=2FARDDcdFaQ

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Angry
**
Accusing me of thinking I am infallible just makes you look foolish. **

You would not be foolishly infallible if you said you have an invisible friend. You do. His name is not Harvey. It’s Jesus.

You are foolishly infallible if you are certain there is no God.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

…The theist plays the role of conscience for the atheist…that way the atheist can avoid disliking
the conscience in self which otherwise perpetually haunts … if the atheist cannot argue abroad the self barrier, the ego collapses, self upon self in absolute conflict between the desire and the conscience. the self then tries to evaporate into the material

Theres no escape, we are graciously trapped in reason, for reason, from reason:thumbsup:

 

[Spock]

The right to life is a very basic Natural Law tenent.

And which is just another nonsense. Your whole diatribe is one huge red herring. This whole “natural law” BS tries to establish that humans have a uniform, unchanging moral code “inscribed on their heart”, and all deviations from that moral code is “evil”. It has nothing to do with our biological nature (which is also not invariant).

I asked you to show me what that “moral code” is, and specifically, how that moral code leads to the idea that any active contraception is “unnatural and evil”. I asked you several times, you did not comply. So, until you will, this conversation is closed.

The fact is that you do not understand what “rights” are, what “laws” are.

 

[You]

Even if that was true, that doesn’t mean such a creator is anything like the god described in the Bible or any other holy book.

That point makes little difference to me. As the objective facts of that creator are that he is the only one, he is alive, and he is goodness. And apparently he has allowed a human to think about the possibility of his existence. And knowing human nature, the human will search him out and knowing the good nature of this one true God he will search out those people too and allow himself to be found. Only one holy book I know of provides the narrative of all of these things.

 

[You]

No I don’t.

You made the claim about how the Aztecs felt, so the burden is on **you **to prove it.

I don’t know if you have missed all of the argument on the thread. As for my own part here it is;
Spock held up a little ‘feral child’ to disprove all of the natural law.
I said a ‘feral child’ seems to imply a traumatized and isolated child.
And I said that a single traumatized, isolated child is not living in the natural state for humans.
And a better example would be a society, as humans are designed for a society, they are social creatures who work, and live better as a society.
So I suggested Spock find an isolated society where everyone in that society thinks of something evil or bad as being something good.
Spock either did not see the idea or he ignored it.
You, angry atheist, picked it up there but failed to find an isolated society where everyone in that society thinks of something evil or bad as being something good.
My part in this is the instigator of the idea, I thought of an idea you could use to prove your point.
It makes no sense to me when you tell me to use my idea to prove you wrong because I do not believe there is any society where everyone in that society thinks of something evil or bad as being something good.
From my point of view I know of no such society and I am curious about Spock’s claim, because if it were true there should be many such societies.
Don’t be asking me to prove what I already know and believe, it is yourself and Spock who started and continue this thread to challenge the reality of natural law. So start providing evidence of the society where everyone in that society thinks of something evil or bad as being something good, if you think your claim is true.

 

[You]

That’s not an argument, that’s just a slogan.

Fine with me angry atheist, do good and evil and see how you feel.

 

[tonyrey]

I have an invisible friend named Harvey, I dare any of you to disprove his existence.

AngryAtheist8

P.S. Harvey has no smell, he is intangible, and cannot be detected by heat or motion sensors.

Your mind with its thoughts, choices and decisions also has no smell, is intangible, and cannot be detected by heat or motion sensors… I dare you to deny its existence!

 

[John21652]

And which is just another nonsense.

Are you saying the Right to Life is another nonsense?

Your whole diatribe is one huge red herring.

When you wrote this thread’s headline as “There is no natural law…so kindly drop it”, I’d say you are the one who wrote a diatribe. It is no answer to anyone to make a vaccuous statement about a red herring and offer no alternative in the process. Your petulant responses are indicative of someone who wants to get their own way and who will not respond rationally to argument.

This whole “natural law” BS

BS? Let me guess; that stands for Better System?

tries to establish that humans have a uniform, unchanging moral code “inscribed on their heart”, and all deviations from that moral code is “evil”.

Wrong. Utterly and otally wrong. The study of Natural Law is a science, just as physics is a science and psychology is a science. Man, you really are tied to a tree in a dark forest…

It has nothing to do with our biological nature (which is also not invariant).

Wrong again. Our biological nature is indeed a very large part of the rational enquiry into Natural Law. Drop your petulant scepticism and do some homework. I gave you the links.

I asked you to show me what that “moral code” is, and specifically, how that moral code leads to the idea that any active contraception is “unnatural and evil”. I asked you several times, you did not comply. So, until you will, this conversation is closed.

Well, what a classic example of someone who is going to take the bat and ball home because the other kiddies wont play exactly by that child’s rules!!

I gave you examples and I gave you links to follow so you wont need to be spoon fed and all you can do is vacate the field in a huff. How very sad.

The fact is that you do not understand what “rights” are, what “laws” are.

I most certainly do understand what “rights” are. As a matter of fact, go study the U.S. Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights: Natural Law documents all. As for “Laws”, they come in two versions; man made positive law and Natural Law. When the former takes precedence over the latter, nations and men run into trouble. And the trouble usually begins because certain individuals and entire societies have no understanding of what Natural Law is.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Actually it might be possible to use science to prove the existence of Natural Law or God.

Scientists could discover that we have some sort of genetic programming that heavily influences moral behavior (e.g. the physical basis of Natural Law) or we could find God in deep space (perhaps he’s hiding on Mars).

But you cannot prove a negative.
I however, do not think that’s a good enough reason to believe in something.

Those things wouldn’t prove God either. People who don’t want to believe in God can say that genetic programming was somehow a result of social evolution and they could also say that whatever was hiding in deep space was not God. So in the end you’d still be an angry atheist making a religion of being agnostic.

But you’ve at least seem to have figured out that science can’t be trusted in it’s correctness so if you DO care about the truth, you’re trip back to God should be a little bit shorter.

 

[soccerdad57]

So that’s your argument then?

That taking some things on faith is the same as taking everything (or virtually everything) on faith

Yes AngryAtheist, that is exactly the point. The fact that you take the first unproven principle on faith alone means just that - THAT YOU HAVE TAKEN EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FOLLOWS ON FAITH ALONE -for precisely the fact that everything else that you believe rests on that first unproven belief - knock that down and the entire house of cards comes tumbling down. The Christian says that day of reckoning is approaching via the
2nd coming fo Christ and even more immediately than that upon our own natural death. Don’t believe in God if you don’t want to - but the man of faith says you do so at your own peril - which is your choice - but don’t deny the rest of us to make our own choice regarding what WE believe to be the fate of our own eternal souls -

 

[soccerdad57]

Yes, science cann’t prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Of course neither can anything else, so I don’t see why that should be considered a mark against science.

• religion doesn’t claim to be able to prove itself - SCIENCE DOES! - so we justified in holding science to the standard it sets for itself!

 

[Glennonite]

Dear John -

Please, pretty please, use those upper and lower case letters where appropriate. Please, break your posts down into readable sentences and paragraphs. Use the delimiters. I had the opportunity to read Ulysses, and threw it away after the first page. I am not interested in reading book-long sentences. If you would grant me this little wish, I will promise that I will try to read what you write. As is, I just bypass everything you write.

Thank you! It needed to be said. I do the same…but I would rather be able to understand what folks are trying to say.

Glennonite

 

[ThinkingSapien]

As the objective facts of that creator are that he is the only one, he is alive, and he is goodness. And apparently he has allowed a human to think about the possibility of his existence.

There were a couple of other threads in which this would be a most fitting talking point. One of them was “Supernatural Epistemology” in which the topics discussed were how do people come to know things like this and verify such propositions as true. I don’t want to derail this thread with a discussion of those objective facts but they will make for interesting talking points in the future.

 

[Xntrik]

those poor feral children who are not really human, but share our DNA. They have no thinking, no understanding, no language, and thus no guiding tool.

Thinking and understanding don’t require language (lots of really intelligent people work more with concepts or images; Einstein was like that and hence at times had a hard time articulating stuff). Before I ever learned the word “manipulation,” I recognized the behavior/attitude, and I passionately hated it.

Also, the feral children would, I’m sure, be innately sensitive to injustice (say, if one of the other kids took his most cherished possession from him, or some choice morsel that he had just managed to catch with a lot of hard work), which right there is one indicator of some sort of “law” inscribed in the heart. And, interestingly enough, the feral children actually prove the biblical teaching of man’s fallenness/depravity.

Please, if you would, give documentation of where biology has “proven” that humans are born as “tabulae rasae.” How would something like science, which deals only with concrete, empirical data, be able to make any pronouncement at all on something as non-empirical as a “law written on the soul”?