Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
But who are these Christian nationalists?The 10 commandments were placed at a time that was pretty brutal. Some of the things that were not only legal, but mandated would be unthinkable today.Today, society at large tends to view the Ten Commandments as sort of an obvious gimme ("of course we shouldn't murder!"), So, some may view even the obvious morality by today's standards as originating/influenced from/by the creator, some just a progressive understanding of human morality.Why should we favor one over the other?
Who are Christian nationalists? Those who attempt to inject Christianity into government arguing Christianity was instrumental to the Constitution.
Notions found in the 10 commandments are not unique or new to Christianity. If murder was not considered bad before religion then I doubt we would be having this conversation since mankind predates it. No god belief is needed to accept some actions cause more harm than benefits. So, it's not a matter of Christian values vs. humanistic values- it's simply humanistic values.
Furthermore, some commandments are completely contradictory to the government established by our founders. For example, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is incongruent with religious freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Are you aware there are passages which would stand against this in the Bible?Not that I'm aware of no. I know some tend to think this of this scripture.Matthew 10:35
This passage undeniably demonstrates 'love your family' is not central to the Christian faith. After all, if Jesus was not bothered by dividing family, and came to do exactly that, then one could hardly say it is a Judeo-Christian value.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It would not have affected the substance of the founding documents because their laudable principles are universal and humanist, hijacked by religion.
That's true, but it also true principles laid out in the Constitution (eg. Liberty, democracy, equality, etc)
are not found in the religions claimed to be the basis of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
There is no dispute *some* of the founders were Christian, but the Constitution was not created specifically for them (or Christians in general) and concepts such as liberty, democracy, equality, etc. did not come from their religious values.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
This is an assertion built on your own assumptions. The Declaration of independence was written in psuedo religious language in order to appeal to its audience- a king claimed to rule by divine right and other countries which may be needed as allies in the struggle for independence. The Constitution has no mention of god(s), and has prohibitions against religious tests (ie. Judeo Christian culture is not favored). Furthermore, the words of the founding fathers outside these documents argue against the mixing of religion and government or a view of America being founded with a Christian government.You’ll find that they intended for a secular government by, of, and for the people, a people of Judeo-Christian culture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Stronn isnt making any claims about atheism - he is talking about the Constitution. Given there is no mention of god(s) in it, it follows our founding document was not built upon revelation.Where do you get the reason over revelation by the way? Reason is why people choose to align with various religions. Thinking that reason would only lead to atheism isn't any better than any religion or philosophy that might claim authority like in a European theocracy. Leads to the same result if not worse.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Some CN seems to equate the 10 commandments to JCP (Judeo Christian Principles), and this would make sense since this is a well both faths might draw from.
"We the people" stands above any personal beliefs any specific founder may have had about god(s) and their role in our government. The Constitution lays out what they agreed on and that is a government which derives its power from the people.
Love your family seems a valuable sentiment, but not one that generally need be mandated. How do you see this value at the basis of US government? Are you aware there are passages which would stand against this in the Bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Meaning unclear.The founding fathers put this country on Rome
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
IMO, "judeao-christian principles" have nothing to with doctrine or dogma; it relates to the way that religion has claimed ownership of niceness.
That may be true, but I don't think CN are referring to niceness when they speak of JCP as the basis of the American government.
Created:
Posted in:
Christian nationalism holds that the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles. "Judeo-Christian" seems nonsensical to begin with (Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity and vice versa). Regardless, principles in the holy texts of Judaism and Christianity are so distinctly different than those embodied in America's founding documents that to suggest a link between them is to grossly misrepresent America.
Rather than waste time defending against arguments that might not be used, I leave it to proponents to define "Judeo-Christian principles" and provide arguments. Perhaps, each respondent may limit themselves to one or two of their best arguments, and let's do our best to keep it civil folks!
FYI, there is an identical post in the religion section should anyone feel their arguments would be more appropriate there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
This assertion is refuted by the first three words of the Constitution: We the people.founding fathers [...] believe our right came from God
What does "Judeo-Christian principles" mean to you?
Created:
Posted in:
Christian nationalism holds that the US was founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles. "Judeo-Christian" seems nonsensical to begin with (Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity and vice versa). Regardless, principles in the holy texts of Judaism and Christianity are so distinctly different than those embodied in America's founding documents that to suggest a link between them is to grossly misrepresent America.
Rather than waste time defending against arguments that might not be used, I leave it to proponents to define "Judeo-Christian principles" and provide arguments. Perhaps, each respondent may limit themselves to one or two of their best arguments, and let's do our best to keep it civil folks!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
It seems you are attempting to redefine inalienable. However, I've provided the definition above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
Irrevocable right is a term you just made up.
Inalienable and irrevocable are essentially synonyms.
Inalienable: Not subject to being taken away from or given away by the possessor.
Given a better understanding of the terms being used, perhaps you can better understand my point. Granting a fetus inalienable rights while inside, and part of, another body with inalienable (irrevocable) rights is nonsensical.
It's like saying someone has an absolute right...except when they don't. 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DeusVult
Aren't inalienable rights also the unborn children? If rights are inalienable then they are intrinsically linked to the moment your life commences and hence fertilization.
For inalienable rights to be attached to the moment of conception is to create circumstances in which a person's irrevocable rights must be revoked. For this reason, personhood is attached to birth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
He continues to weaponize religion, patriotism, etc. He calls for unity, but makes no effort to compromise. It was nothing more than political theater.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
From my perspective, this is a necessary allowance. Telling a woman that her rights can go away under certain circumstances is to make a mockery of 'inalienable rights'. Rights should never be revoked.
Besides, most abortions are done in the first trimester and late term abortions are more risky and typically done only in extreme cases. This legislation is not likely to change that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
1. Yes
2. Yes. This would function as an oversight for moderation.
3. No. Again, this functions as a check on the moderation team. It should be seen as transparency rather than public shaming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
So, in you view there is only gnostic theists and atheists, or is everyone really believers of some type?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Disagree. Agnosticism is not a statement of belief but knowledge. It is possible to be an agnostic theist.
Created:
-->
@janesix
This is not the "theist" forum. It is a religion forum on a debate website and you cannot have debate without disagreement. It is quite natural for non believers to test their own views as well as challenge those of others.
As I see it, believing a forum is exclusively for the use of any particular group is to misunderstand what debate is about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
Welcome to DART, crossed. Glad to have ya!
I read your post and found little argument for Christianity. For the sake of argument, let's say I found your intelligent designer arguments compelling (which I don't), why would I assume this designer is the Christian god? Could a believer in Zeus not use the same argument? There is a unwarranted leap from "intelligent designer" to any specific god. You need to bridge that gap for this to be an argument for your deity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I accept this, Keith, but I believe Sam thinks there is more to meditation than this.Closing my eyes and putting Bach on the CD player didn't work for me until i tried doing it in the other order.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I have a hard time following Same down this road. It seems to me meditation can be immensely beneficial. Where he and I part ways (I believe) is that I would view enjoying art, hiking, listening to music (and other things which can induce a calm introspection) to be meditation. I imagine he wants an activity a little more structured/devoted?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
I was listening to his podcast today (by the same name). He mentioned this book and, if I understood him correctly, it lays out meditation in some way?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Oh great. I'm not sure if I can stand for THAT ambiguity! 😜
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
😂 Aww, dang it. My name is no longer ambigious!
Created:
Posted in:
What books are you guys reading? I'm reading "The Story of the Earth in 25 Rocks". I am enjoying it immensely. I plan on reading another book by the same author next: "The story of life in 25 fossils"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
So...are you still a moral nihilist. If so, I still don't understand!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I would guess it's more of the former and less of the latter. 😃😅😏😐🙄
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
Both (1) and (2) entail an infinite chain of preceding events
How do you figure?
The physical universe expanded from a zero-dimensional point at which all laws in the universe were broken down.The best explanation for this singularity is something non-physical that also possesses causal power
That's one explanation, but I'm not sure I would say it is "the best". How would you determine that? It could be there was no singularity and the big bang was merely a collision between branes currently beyond our detection. If that were the case, then an explanation of a hypothetical singularity is certainly not the best explanation.
The fine-tunedness is more consistent with design.
Being *consistent* with design and being designed are not the same thing. You would need to show the appearance of design is not natural and given we have only one universe to observe I'm not sure how that could be done.
If our internal organs have a purpose, God exists.Our internal organs have a purpose.Therefore, God exists.
I don't believe organs have a *purpose*. They have a function they may or may not adequately perform. What could be the purpose of a non-functioning or vestigial organ?
Any prescribed function for our internal organs is predicated on goals.
Prescribed assumes prescriber. I believe "describe" is the appropriate term and the argument cannot stand on description. This is applicable to the "designing mind" argument as well. Beauty, rationality, etc., require conscious minds to describe them, and they exist. Also, we dont necessarily find our universe intelligible. I mean, how many intuit quantum mechanics or relativity?
Moral realism is true.
Is it? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "moral realism". I withhold my rebuttal until defined and explained.
NDEs (of God) are [...] admissible in court as evidence.
I find this hard to believe, but if true, they are certainly a very weak form of evidence and, on the whole, are contradictory. Furthermore, some NDE having nothing to do with gods and undoubtedly include gods of all religions known to man.
The laws of logic [...]
...are descriptions. Without the describers (humans) they do not exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
I think that would need to be considered an argument rather than an axiom... and it needs defense.A fundamental consciousness would exist prior to the physical universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The problem is that suppose the varied laws meant carbon could not form.
That is only a problem if we assume we know all the possible ways life can manifest, and/or that life HAD to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
but one must take a step back and consider that if certain forces in the universe had varied just a little bit in either direction -- if some god had just blown a stray breath on the cosmic scales -- carbon would never have been created at all, stars would never have formed or exploded to create the critical elements, and the very structure of the atom itself would not be able to hold together so neatly
Sure if things were different we wouldn't be here, but we would need to assume life as we know it was supposed to be for the argument to make any sense. Why would we assume that? It could be that under different variables a life unlike us could have come about, and they could be using the same fine-tuning argument! 🤔
The fine tuning argument uses logic in a backward way. It's like taking the winner of a lottery and counting all the things that happened in a particular order and assuming they were necessary and calculating the odds for and against. For instance, Bob woke up, wore his lucky shirt, got coffee, drove to store on Buckner, forgot his wallet, drove home, drove to store on Beltline, bought lottery ticket, etc, etc, and won the lottery. "If Bob had not left his wallet at home the lottery would not be won by Bob". Maybe...but someone would still win. Other than having a lottery ticket, we dont know that anything is necessary to win the lottery. It is the same with life - the universe exists (the lottery ticket), but we dont know that the variables we observe in the universe are necessary for life to exist....someone else (a different kind of life) could have 'won the lottery'! 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
That's one view of atheism. Its not one that I accept though. As Keith says, "atheism is incidental to my worldview, not central to it.". I think this sums up my view as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
+1atheism is incidental to my worldview, not central to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
They're simply hiding behind one part of the defintion while holding the other to be true.
I don't find this to be true. I think most self-proclaimed atheists readily acknowledge they believe 'revealed' gods (or the gods of religions) don't exist. However, this is not the same as believing in the non-existence of all gods including deistic or otherwise unknown/unrevealed gods. People can hold different views on different god concepts and this isn't being deceptive.
In any case, I don't think declaring the thread "over" because someone said atheism is not a worldview was warranted because it in fact can be.
It was a little snarky, I'll admit. I do think it undercuts the hidden premise ("atheism is a worldview") and reveals the OP absurd though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fallaneze
"Atheism" might narrowly be defined as a belief god does not exist, but that is not an all-encompassing definition. Atheism includes non-belief in gods, which is skepticism, and is not a worldview. In my opinion, this is the position of most atheist. Maybe you meant to ask about a particular form of atheism rather than atheism itself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Skepticism isn't a worldview thoughNeither is atheism.
👏👏👏
/end thread
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I dont know. I don't understand your mechanism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Being a non believer in one worldview (theism) does not mean an individual has no worldview or a worldview against what theism appeals to (ie. Something beyond the self).
I think a better question is 'what makes people find value in something greater than themselves'? I think this question is answered by our shared evolutionary heritage. Appealing to something larger than ourselves gives us a sense of control (maybe illusory) that actually can motivate us to do things that directly or indirectly benefits the individual beyond what purely selfish motivations allow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Of course I would.👏👏👏You liked that one! (^8
Well, yea!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
Attacking Ethan personally does nothing to validate your view (whatever it is) or sway Ethan away from his. It is counterproductive to my goals, and I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd not involve me.
Created: