Conquer Club

Several times here I have proposed that the way something should be done is because God says to do it that way.
Immediately, people jump on me saying that I should not force my beliefs on others.

Now maybe it is just me, but is not the exact thing they are doing to me?

Should I not be free to think that everyone should do something because of x (insert whatever religion/faith/lack of faith you want), while they are more than welcome to think that it should be because of y (insert whatever other reason you want empiricism/economics/atheism/Jungian theory/Freudiansim ect.).

Should not the real discussion be about whose opinion is right or wrong?

puppydog85 wrote:Several times here I have proposed that the way something should be done is because God says to do it that way.
Immediately, people jump on me saying that I should not force my beliefs on others.

Now maybe it is just me, but is not the exact thing they are doing to me?

Should I not be free to think that everyone should do something because of x (insert whatever religion/faith/lack of faith you want), while they are more than welcome to think that it should be because of y (insert whatever other reason you want empiricism/economics/atheism/Jungian theory/Freudiansim ect.).

Should not the real discussion be about whose opinion is right or wrong?

Moral code without a god. Get on it.

Also: Thinking freely is a double edged sword.
Sure, you can progress in beneficial ways, but you can also regress in harmful ways.

Good: Science and Technology. (For the most part except when used for 'evil'.)
Bad: Neo Nazism.

Both backed by freedom of speech/thought, but one is obviously good and the other bad.

puppydog85 wrote:Several times here I have proposed that the way something should be done is because God says to do it that way.
Immediately, people jump on me saying that I should not force my beliefs on others.

Now maybe it is just me, but is not the exact thing they are doing to me?

Should I not be free to think that everyone should do something because of x (insert whatever religion/faith/lack of faith you want), while they are more than welcome to think that it should be because of y (insert whatever other reason you want empiricism/economics/atheism/Jungian theory/Freudiansim ect.).

Should not the real discussion be about whose opinion is right or wrong?

(1) When you say that we should impose a theocracy over a quasi-free society, then that constitutes as "forcing your beliefs on others" because of the choice of your means for implementation.

(2) If you're standing around saying, "gay marriage is wrong cuz God says so," then that isn't forcing your beliefs on anyone.

The means are different. One uses the state's monopoly on the "legitimate" use of the force, and the other doesn't entail the inevitable fringing upon anyone's rights (as compared to implementing a theocracy). In other words, expressing the #2 opinion isn't forcing your beliefs on anyone.


Sir, it is time to readjust your knickers, for they appear to be twisted, my good man.

But you are perfectly willing to use that same force for whatever economic idea you have? How is that different from whatever issue I want?
I think you missed the whole point of my question or maybe I missed whatever it is you believe. Why should I on my issues be forced to sit and twiddle my thumbs but your issues are ok to be forced on me or someone else. Is not all law a legislation of morality?

A state that does not impose any moral code is not imposing a moral code on you.

So you are saying that laws have no morality? Even traffic lights have morality behind them (It's wrong to kill other people)

'morality is whatever works to the advantage of the person defining morality' - plato (paraphrased)

the order that people try to impose on the world around them is the order that will best suit their needs. the way they define morality and justice is a mere tool in this imposition.

GreecePwns wrote:A state that does not impose any moral code is not imposing a moral code on you.

any state with laws is a state which imposes a moral code

puppydog85 wrote:I think you missed the whole point of my question or maybe I missed whatever it is you believe. Why should I on my issues be forced to sit and twiddle my thumbs but your issues are ok to be forced on me or someone else.

I still think your knickers are twisted.

(1) You want to implement a theocracy. What do you think that entails?

(2) Suppose you say the statement, "gay marriage is immoral." What do you think that entails?


Note the implied difference in the role of force here. If you can see the difference, then you'll understand my previous post. I don't see why you're failing to distinguish between the approval of involuntary force of your religious beliefs over the entire country (e.g. #1) and simply exercising your right to free speech (e.g. #2). That's what #1 and #2 entail to me, so perhaps this is our source of misunderstanding.


So, to bring it back:

Several times here I have proposed that the way something should be done is because God says to do it that way.
Immediately, people jump on me saying that I should not force my beliefs on others.

#2 is not forcing your beliefs on others. #1 would be forcing your beliefs on others. Righty right?

puppydog85 wrote:But you are perfectly willing to use that same force for whatever economic idea you have? How is that different from whatever issue I want?

Care to cite an example? I have trouble arguing against the extremely vague.

puppydog85 wrote:Is not all law a legislation of morality?

Not quite. Because I love you so much, I'm going to quote from a favorite book of mine, The Enterprise of Law (11):

If law is simply represented by any system of rules, as some have suggested[1], then "morality" and law would appear to be synonymous. Lon Fuller contended that "law," when more appropriately "...viewed as a direction of purposive human effort, consists in the enterprise of subjecting human conduct to the governance of rules."[2] Law consists of both rules of conduct and the mechanisms or processes for applying those rules.

Individuals must have incentives to recognize rules of conduct or the rules become irrelevant, so institutions for enforcement are necessary. Similarly, when the implications of existing rules are unclear, dispute resolution institutions are required. As conditions change, mechanisms for development of new rules and changes in old rules must exist. So, legal systems display very similar structural characteristics.[3]

(I'd list the bibliography if you really, really, REALLY want me to).

So, why is adopting a 2000 year old book as the country's legal code a good idea?

Why would an organization such as the Roman Catholic Church or Islamic Republic of Iran* provide the US with a better alternative form of government?

*used as examples, which may not necessarily be of your opinion. I'm just trying to make the idea of theocracy clearer to you and others.

puppydog85 wrote:Several times here I have proposed that the way something should be done is because God says to do it that way.
Immediately, people jump on me saying that I should not force my beliefs on others.

Now maybe it is just me, but is not the exact thing they are doing to me?

Should I not be free to think that everyone should do something because of x (insert whatever religion/faith/lack of faith you want), while they are more than welcome to think that it should be because of y (insert whatever other reason you want empiricism/economics/atheism/Jungian theory/Freudiansim ect.).

Should not the real discussion be about whose opinion is right or wrong?

Except there is no right or wrong. God may exist, he may not exist. Arguing about it accomplishes nothing except aog gets to tell us were all retarded, and, well, so does j9b in a roundabout way
As an apathetic agnostic however I can certainly confirm I force nothing on noone

puppydog85 wrote:Several times here I have proposed that the way something should be done is because God says to do it that way.
Immediately, people jump on me saying that I should not force my beliefs on others.

These people are missing the point, then. Surely the screaming craziness here is in delegating your own sense of what is moral to a set of ancient and contradictory texts written by a bunch of goatherds and rabbis thousands of years ago.

God tells abraham to kill his own son - Abraham says 'sure thing, god'. God says 'only kidding!' but only when Abe is about to do the deed. This story is told reverentially in church as an example of the depth of abraham's love of god. Of course, this would not work as a defence against a charge of attempted murder of one's own son today: 'God told me to do it'. People that say that are crazy. They are not generally praised as true believers.

The point is that no one really expects god to talk directly to anyone today (let's set aside the fact that that would clear a lot of shit up for basically everyone on the planet). So if you want to take your morality from god, you need to get it from the bible, a book so filled with hatred and barbarity - much of it ordered by god himself - that the idea of anyone looking to it as a moral guide is really quite terrifying.

puppydog85 wrote:Several times here I have proposed that the way something should be done is because God says to do it that way.

Which God?

puppydog85 wrote:Should not the real discussion be about whose opinion is right or wrong?

Absolutely correct. And "because God said so" is not a good determination criteria for how "right" something is.

Phatscotty wrote:

puppydog85 wrote:Several times here I have proposed that the way something should be done is because God says to do it that way.
Immediately, people jump on me saying that I should not force my beliefs on others.

Now maybe it is just me, but is not the exact thing they are doing to me?

Should I not be free to think that everyone should do something because of x (insert whatever religion/faith/lack of faith you want), while they are more than welcome to think that it should be because of y (insert whatever other reason you want empiricism/economics/atheism/Jungian theory/Freudiansim ect.).

Should not the real discussion be about whose opinion is right or wrong?

I always knew you were a theocrat at heart, Phatscotty.

Woodruff, stop trolling and baiting Phat. Get a life.

Cola, I may be crazy and terrifying but does that mean that you can skip the laws of logic when arguing against me? (not saying that you do)

I find Gillipig to be terrifying yet I still think I need to argue in a coherent fashion against him.

puppydog85 wrote:So you are saying that laws have no morality? Even traffic lights have morality behind them (It's wrong to kill other people)

I'm not disagreeing here. I'm saying the only laws that are valid are ones that are not imposed on people.

What do I mean by imposed? For laws to be not imposed, you'd have to agree to follow a social contract (set of laws, societal norms, etc.) just as you would any other contract. Just sign your name on the dotted line.

Until you reach a predetermined age of maturity, your parent or legal guardian can speak for you and sign a social contract in your name. Other exceptions covered in common law would also allow for someone to sign for another.

The exception in a social contract is the ability to leave and sign another one at will, with no consequences (unless said consequences are covered in the contract itself).

What is this thing recently about people whining when others disagree with them about how their free speech is being violated?

You do have a right to your own opinions but remember this doesn't make your opinions right.

Thank you for that sage advice, Lifer.

Neo, this has nothing to do with free speech. It has more to do with logical arguments. ( and yes lifer, I know a logical argument can be wrong yet still be logical)

Greece, so if I don't agree with you that murder in wrong then it is fine for me to commit it? That seems to me to be what you are saying.

I'm saying if you want to associate yourself with a community of people who believe murder should be legal, you should be free to denounce your citizenship in the United States of America (or any other country which coerces its citizens) and create such a community, and as long as you don't force your morality on your citizens, your laws are much more credible than the ones created by the federal, state and local governments of the United States of America.

That doesn't take away from the fact that they're simply bad laws that would prevent nearly all people from joining your community.

To avoid forcing your morality on your citizens, you should have them sign a contract upon joining your community that lists the rules, societal norms, etc of the community (which we will call "social contract") and how those rules are changed (legislation, election of leaders if there are any, etc). It should be made clear that murder is legal in your community, so potential new members know what they're getting into. There should also be a clear explanation on how to leave the social contract, and it should be one that allows the person to leave on their own free will with little to no consequences.

Of course, nations don't allow one to simply denounce their citizenship. Nations enforce their territorial claims with guns, and they do the same with taxes. They impose their morality on you.

This is my belief. I don't think any of it invovles forcing my beliefs onto you.

puppydog85 wrote:Several times here I have proposed that the way something should be done is because God says to do it that way.
Immediately, people jump on me saying that I should not force my beliefs on others.

Now maybe it is just me, but is not the exact thing they are doing to me?

Should I not be free to think that everyone should do something because of x (insert whatever religion/faith/lack of faith you want), while they are more than welcome to think that it should be because of y (insert whatever other reason you want empiricism/economics/atheism/Jungian theory/Freudiansim ect.).

Should not the real discussion be about whose opinion is right or wrong?

Yep, but if you want to go there then the god hypothesis needs to be evaluated exactly the same as all the other economic/social/political/scientific hypotheses.

People tell you not to force your beliefs on others when taking that line because most (reasonable) religious people acknowledge their belief in god is just that, a belief. That it's based on faith.
If you feel up to the task of treating the existance of the abrahamic god as any other scientific theory and can show that theory is most likely correct, then it would indeed make sense to follow the word of this god.

Do you think you can show that the Christian god is real to a scientific standard of evidence ?

Haggis,

I am not one of those Christians who think that faith is something that is contrary to reason.
Yes, I have a faith but it is that faith (also known as a ultimate principle) that allows me to reason. I would hold that you do precisely the same thing with your "scientific standard of evidence". Pushed far enough back, everyone has a faith commitment. I will repeat again that I have no problem with arguments, I just want them to be logical. Start a thread and we can go there. Label it "problems with the transcendental proof of God's existence" or "Why puppydog85 is wrong in thinking that everyone uses his worldview to explain their own".

What is logical about any statement that ends with "because God says so"? In fact the statement itself is the very definition of a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. If you want a logical argument then you cannot say "X is right/wrong because God says so", you have to say "X is right/wrong because of these measurable scientific and societal effects of X"

puppydog85 wrote:Haggis,

I am not one of those Christians who think that faith is something that is contrary to reason.
Yes, I have a faith but it is that faith (also known as a ultimate principle) that allows me to reason. I would hold that you do precisely the same thing with your "scientific standard of evidence". Pushed far enough back, everyone has a faith commitment. I will repeat again that I have no problem with arguments, I just want them to be logical. Start a thread and we can go there. Label it "problems with the transcendental proof of God's existence" or "Why puppydog85 is wrong in thinking that everyone uses his worldview to explain their own".

Isn't faith, by definition, the complement of evidence? As in it takes a little bit of faith to believe the Sun will rise tommorrow, cause we have quite ample evidence that it will do so, but it would take quite a great deal of faith to believe that Elvis is still alive and living in Mexico.

Yes, any position requires some faith as nothing is for sure outside of math/logic. But the degrees of faith are different.
I would say that faith is inversely proportional to reason/evidence. The more evidence or reasoned arguments we have to believe A, the less faith is necessary to hold that belief.

We have quite ample evidence that the scientific method works. We also have evidence, to some extent, showing why various political/economic ideas are/aren't good.

If you want to add biblical laws as an alternative, solely because "god said so", then you'll first have to provide evidence that your god does actually exist and that he did in fact "say so".
Untill then it appears as if the biblical laws require a great deal more faith than the secular ones.

Crispy,

Appeal to authority does not equal a fallacy. This is not the thread for arguing about God's existence, but a brief answer to what you said would go like this: you are also making an appeal to authority in your x/y statement. You appeal to science and society. Ergo- your statement does the same thing you accuse me of.

What you want to ask is whether your standards of measurement are better than mine. I would say not, you would say yes and the discussion would move on from there.

puppydog85 wrote:Crispy,

Appeal to authority does not equal a fallacy. This is not the thread for arguing about God's existence, but a brief answer to what you said would go like this: you are also making an appeal to authority in your x/y statement. You appeal to science and society. Ergo- your statement does the same thing you accuse me of.

What you want to ask is whether your standards of measurement are better than mine. I would say not, you would say yes and the discussion would move on from there.

You're right that an appeal to authority is not automatically a fallacy.

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ority.html

The problem with using God as an authority is that he doesn't exist.