Megyn Kelly GRILLS Debbie Wasserman Schultz On Abortion, Rand Paul

[Suzu]

Why is it wrong to do that?

Consider whether you would want it done to you. If not, then don't do it to someone else. The idea that Jesus originated the "Golden Rule" is false.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, if you're talking about the god of the Christian bible (and I think you probably are, if the quote in your sig line is any indication of your beliefs), then he's not a very good example of "walking the talk". Maybe you ought to read some of that Old Testament one of these days.

Theonomy FTW!

 

[Sola_Fide]

Except, apparently, if your name is George W. Bush!

What does it matter what George Bush says? What does the Bible say?

I think refraining from killing other people is much more than "arbitrary". If the only reason not to kill is fear of eternal damnation, then that sort of "morality" should be tossed.

Thats not what I said. I didnt say anything about damnation. I said the command of God is the reason that makes something right or wrong. In an atheist worldview, why is anything wrong? Including murder?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Consider whether you would want it done to you. If not, then don't do it to someone else. The idea that Jesus originated the "Golden Rule" is false.

In an atheist worldview, why should someone follow the golden rule?

 

[Suzu]

In an atheist worldview, why should someone follow the golden rule?

I don't know that there is such a thing as an "atheist worldview". But anyone who can and will use the capacity for reason will understand. Even non-reasoning animals do not kill without a good reason to do so.

 

[presence]

In an atheist worldview, why should someone follow the golden rule?

Atheists are pragmatic; they generally engage in rules of ethic not because of some decree of a church or scripture; or fear of wrath... but because its "tried and true".

the Golden Rule is found in a great many different religions and different cultures because it has been shown to work

http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Golden_Rule

Failure to folllow the golden rule historically turns to blood feuds; a cycle of retaliatory violence. I think its clear to all, god fearing and not... if you spit in someone's face you're going to face a degree of retaliation. Even wolves respect on another's space in the wild.


Why do birds build nests?

in·stinct
noun
noun: instinct; plural noun: instincts
ˈinstiNG(k)t/
1.
an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli.
"birds have an instinct to build nests"

 

[orenbus]

Here is Arnold's impersonation of SF.

 

[Pistis]

I don't know that there is such a thing as an "atheist worldview". But anyone who can and will use the capacity for reason will understand. Even non-reasoning animals do not kill without a good reason to do so.

Agree with Sola_Fide on this... don't see why killing babies or 3 year olds (or anyone for that matter) is a problem if God doesn't exist

And why have a good reason, a bad reason or no reason at all would be fine. And why would one set of motivations be good and another bad, who's to decide which is which and why. I don't see the distinction in a godless world.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I don't know that there is such a thing as an "atheist worldview". But anyone who can and will use the capacity for reason will understand. Even non-reasoning animals do not kill without a good reason to do so.

But "reasoning animals" kill. And humans kill too, all the time. Look around you. The history of man has been one of murder and oppression.

Is that what you base ethics on? Nature?

 

[Pistis]

And yes, atheists definitely have a worldview, think about the BIG questions, atheists come down on them one way or the other.

Now agnostics... you could argue that they don't have a worldview but even the position that I can't possibly know about this, that or the other is a worldview


.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Well. Hm. All I ask is that when this thread gets moved, please consider HT instead of the Religion section. Is a humble and reasonable request. The direction in which discussion is heading here would likely be equally as toxic to the candidate in the Religion section as it will be here.

Thank You

 

[freejack]

Atheists are pragmatic; they generally engage in rules of ethic not because of some decree of a church or scripture; or fear of wrath... but because its "tried and true".

How about survival of the fittest? That's worked for millions of years.

 

[LawnWake]

Agree with Sola_Fide on this... don't see why killing babies or 3 year olds (or anyone for that matter) is a problem if God doesn't exist

That has no bearing on anything except for you though. The simple fact that you don't understand how an atheist wouldn't be interested in murdering others doesn't matter much when you consider that there quite obviously are] atheists who are against murder.

How well versed are you in Austrian economics? Simply apply Austrian axioms to society and ethics and you will understand why atheists are against murder, even without a deity.

If you're an Austrian and you think society is capable of making the best economic decision without a central planner, then it shouldn't require much of a stretch of immagination to understand how society can come up with an ethical model without a ruling figure.

 

[Arpmoog]

This is a critical issue. It addresses the true underlying cause of our countries problem. We have lost our soul. Those principles that this country is founded on i.e. the importance of the individual and of life itself. God made man individual and gave high value to the individual. He created us as individuals, he instilled in us individual rights, and he saves us as individuals. All life is important and THIS fact is where all of our rights spring from. Once that idea was undermined, the whole system began to fail and that is why the "country is going to hell in a hand basket." All of these other problems like debt, wars, lost of freedom, etc. are symptoms of the idea that life is only valuable as part of the collective and what you give to society, rather than having intrinsic value.

Thankyou for this post, You my friend hit the nail on the head.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Arnold's impersonation...

eyyyyep....

 

[orenbus]

Mike Gallagher is an American radio host and conservative political commentator. He is the host of The Mike Gallagher Show, a nationally syndicated radio program that airs throughout the United States on Salem Radio Network and is also a FOX News Channel Contributor and guest host. According to Talkers magazine, Gallagher is the sixth most-listened-to radio talk show host in the United States.

 

[Pistis]

That has no bearing on anything except for you though. The simple fact that you don't understand how an atheist wouldn't be interested in murdering others doesn't matter much when you consider that there quite obviously are] atheists who are against murder.

How well versed are you in Austrian economics? Simply apply Austrian axioms to society and ethics and you will understand why atheists are against murder, even without a deity.

If you're an Austrian and you think society is capable of making the best economic decision without a central planner, then it shouldn't require much of a stretch of immagination to understand how society can come up with an ethical model without a ruling figure.

Agreed, most atheists wouldn't be interested in murdering others. Most people of all worldview persuasions wouldn't.


Although as an aside, we underestimate the capacity of people of any worldview persuasion to have an incredibly murderous instinct if the right conditions and priming exists. I will avoid the easy example of Hitler & the sizeable percentage of the German population who rationalised & supported what happened until Hitler turned on them.

An even better example is Bastiat's take on the amazing contrast between the French revolution & the American revolution, both at the same moment in history, pursuing the same aims - life, liberty, and fraternity/pursuit of happiness - and how the French Revolution, underpinned by an atheist worldview and without a central planner (at least until Napoleon came along & restored order) turned what was a noble idea of the pursuit of liberty into a murderous carnage on an unprecedented scale. And then the later revolutions of Russia, China, Cuba & Cambodia came along, all sharing the same philosophical underpinnings as the French revolution and all supported by a near majority of the population. Contrast that with the American revolution, led by Founding Fathers with strong theist and deist worldviews that provided the philosophical underpinnings for that revolution, and pursuing exactly the same goals as the French, but with radically different methods and with a radically different outcome. Alexis de Tocqueville agonised over the same question of what was so different between the French & the Americans but it's easy to spot. Both he & Bastiat are worth reading on this topic.



But anyway, back to the topic which I think your point missed. Sure, society can come up with an ethical model, but society is made up of individual people, and people are fickle and change their minds -- societal change of mind used to take a generations, but now a viral #hashtag is all that it takes. The threshold for the legally allowed motivations for euthanasia & assisted suicide in Europe has been steadily decreasing (read up on "Van Den Bleeken") and now it is completely bonkers. In the UK, we are having a debate about legalising euthanasia and the strongest argument of the 'pros' is that it'll stop the hundreds of flights that leave the UK each year to Belgium and Holland where it's legal.


Ask yourself, do you want the current American society coming up with an ethical model? I wouldn't. How about the American society of 1776 (I probably would), how about the American society of 2076? Would you be OK with every American having the vote on what ethics would apply in any given situation? -- we'll probably have that by 2076!


Society left to its own devices might come up with the American Revolution but then it might come up with the French/Chinese/Russian/Cambodian/Cuban/Venezuelan revolutions to name but six. Atheists can't stand back & objectively make the point that one was better than the other, they all had sizeable support from society, how do they argue that one society's choice was good and another society's choice was bad. You'd then have to concede the point that society can't come up with an ethical model. So strike that. What's the next option?


However deists/theists can make a call one way or the other because they appeal to an unchanging ethical model that doesn't depend on society.

 

[LawnWake]

Agreed, most atheists wouldn't be interested in murdering others. Most people of all worldview persuasions wouldn't.


Although as an aside, we underestimate the capacity of people of any worldview persuasion to have an incredibly murderous instinct if the right conditions and priming exists. I will avoid the easy example of Hitler & the sizeable percentage of the German population who rationalised & supported what happened until Hitler turned on them.

An even better example is Bastiat's take on the amazing contrast between the French revolution & the American revolution, both at the same moment in history, pursuing the same aims - life, liberty, and fraternity/pursuit of happiness - and how the French Revolution, underpinned by an atheist worldview and without a central planner (at least until Napoleon came along & restored order) turned what was a noble idea of the pursuit of liberty into a murderous carnage on an unprecedented scale. And then the later revolutions of Russia, China, Cuba & Cambodia came along, all sharing the same philosophical underpinnings as the French revolution and all supported by a near majority of the population. Contrast that with the American revolution, led by Founding Fathers with strong theist and deist worldviews that provided the philosophical underpinnings for that revolution, and pursuing exactly the same goals as the French, but with radically different methods and with a radically different outcome. Alexis de Tocqueville agonised over the same question of what was so different between the French & the Americans but it's easy to spot. Both he & Bastiat are worth reading on this topic.



But anyway, back to the topic which I think your point missed. Sure, society can come up with an ethical model, but society is made up of individual people, and people are fickle and change their minds -- societal change of mind used to take a generations, but now a viral #hashtag is all that it takes. The threshold for the legally allowed motivations for euthanasia & assisted suicide in Europe has been steadily decreasing (read up on "Van Den Bleeken") and now it is completely bonkers. In the UK, we are having a debate about legalising euthanasia and the strongest argument of the 'pros' is that it'll stop the hundreds of flights that leave the UK each year to Belgium and Holland where it's legal.


Ask yourself, do you want the current American society coming up with an ethical model? I wouldn't. How about the American society of 1776 (I probably would), how about the American society of 2076? Would you be OK with every American having the vote on what ethics would apply in any given situation? -- we'll probably have that by 2076!


Society left to its own devices might come up with the American Revolution but then it might come up with the French/Chinese/Russian/Cambodian/Cuban/Venezuelan revolutions to name but six. Atheists can't stand back & objectively make the point that one was better than the other, they all had sizeable support from society, how do they argue that one society's choice was good and another society's choice was bad. You'd then have to concede the point that society can't come up with an ethical model. So strike that. What's the next option?


However deists/theists can make a call one way or the other because they appeal to an unchanging ethical model that doesn't depend on society.

You're making the faulty assumption by limiting the differences between solely on how, in your view, "theistic" they are. Social factors can rarely if never be pinned down to one variable.

And as an aside, American society was less religious in 1776 than it is now.

That atheists can't make a judgment because it isn't objective isn't a good argument. Just because you choose to view your judgement as objective doesn't mean it is.

Would you be OK with every American having the vote on what ethics would apply in any given situation? -- we'll probably have that by 2076!

Well, I believe every individual has the right to vote on economics policy with their wallet. In other words, engaging in the free market. So sure, I'm fine with individuals partaking in the market place of ideas as well.

 

[orenbus]

If what some of you are discussing is going to devolve into the whole ~ e n d l e s s ~ objective/subjective morality worldview debate, can you please take it to the Religion sub-forum or Hot Topics, there are separate sections on forums that cater to these talks. I don't want this thread being moved out of the Rand Paul sub-forum or straight out locked.

Thank you.

 

[Natural Citizen]

If what some of you are discussing is going to devolve into the whole ~ e n d l e s s ~ objective/subjective morality worldview debate, can you please take it to the Religion sub-forum or Hot Topics, there are separate sections on forums that cater to these talks. I don't want this thread being moved out of the Rand Paul sub-forum or straight out locked.

Thank you.

Hot Topics preferably. We don't want it in the Religion sub forum either. It is equally as toxic to what we're trying to do here if it is sent to the Religion sub forum and that is a publicly accessible sub forum as well. Last week, someone started a thread along the lines of Rand Paul being the anti-christ in the Rand Paul forum and it got pawned off in the Religion section by default. That wasn't very fair in my view because it insinuates that that kind of thing is in tune with the purpose of that section and makes those folks look foolish through no action of their own. Thankfully, it eventually got moved to Hot Topics where it belonged.

Thank You.