Paul-endorsed congressional candidate winning Kansas GOP primary

[Slutter McGee]

All ethical beliefs are inherently religious.

I might even go so far as to say that all beliefs about anything are inherently religious.

That is asinine. There are plenty of ethical theories that in no way involve commands from a supreme being.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[erowe1]

That is asinine. There are plenty of ethical theories that in no way involve commands from a supreme being.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I didn't say anything about commands from supreme beings.

But it is worth observing here, for the sake of illustration, that the claim, "There are plenty of ethical theories that in no way involve commands from a supreme being." is a religious claim.

 

[Slutter McGee]

I didn't say anything about commands from supreme beings.

But it is worth observing here, for the sake of illustration, that the claim, "There are plenty of ethical theories that in no way involve commands from a supreme being." is a religious claim.

No. It isn't. Utilitarianism is not religious in nature. Egoism is not religious in nature. Locke's rights theories is not religious in nature.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[erowe1]

Utilitarianism is not religious in nature.

Yes it is.

Egoism is not religious in nature.

Yes it is.

Locke's rights theories are not religious in nature.

Yes they are.


Moreover, the claims, "Utilitarianism is not religious in nature," "Egoism is not religious in nature," and "Locke's rights theories are not religious in nature," are all religious claims.

 

[klamath]

What nobody (Libertarian or otherwise) has talked me out of: Strict pro-life beliefs are inherently religious in cause and structure, and therefore the enforcement of such ideas through use of the law/regulations/police is not only authoritarian, but the function of a militant religious state.

It's easy to say "human life is sacred" and leave it at that, but we also must ask why this is so. A Christian may soundly argue, within her premises, that human life is created by God in His image and is therefore fully sentient, spiritual and valued far above plant or animal life. An atheist may typically argue that yes, human life is more valuable than animal life, because we have evolved into the most sentient, evolved consciousness on Earth. Both sides agree on what makes human beings so special, inasmuch as our brains & souls -- our conscious awareness -- is the expression & substance of that value.

Since human life is valued for its self-awareness, it follows that a "human being" that has no awareness, no power to think or feel, may not be logically valued in the same way that a conscious, sentient person is valued. (When a baby is born without a brain, it dies, and is never considered a fully formed human being). Now a late-trimester fetus can scientifically, logically be shown to possess awareness and sentience. A five-months fetus has likely developed the special traits that make human life so valuable, with a brain, a heart and a consciousness. Even if we're "not sure" if fetuses or even small infants are completely self-aware and sentient human beings, it is absolutely wrong to kill them, just as it's wrong to throw a bomb into a building that "may have" people in it. A developed fetus is absolutely a form of human life & absolutely has natural rights.

But the idea that a first-weeks pregnancy, which at that point consists of a mother carrying a fertilized tissue mass, objectively constitutes a sentient and qualitatively human life, is absurd from a secular point of view. Does the woman at this point have the potential to create a human baby? Yes, she does. But so do any man and woman on a date. Has a self-aware human life yet formed and experienced human consciousness? No, it hasn't. From a secular, scientific, common-sense point of view, using the properties of human life as the standard of what human life is, there is no significant moral difference between two people A) deciding not to screw, B) screwing & using birth control, C) screwing, fertilizing (maybe) and using the morning-after pill, or D) screwing, fertilizing/conceiving, waiting two weeks and aborting the fertilized tissue mass. No new consciousness may be rationally shown to have lived, or died. A potential was always there and is always there every day, but that does not equal a human life any more than an abstention from sex equals an abortion.

But maybe that's wrong, you might say, because what about the Bible/Buddhism/Paganism theories of the soul awakening at conception, of reincarnation & the moment of transference, of your belief as a Christian that the soul in fact is birthed or reconstituted at the moment of fertilization? Well, what about them? These are perfectly valid concepts. Anyone is free to believe any or all or none of them & make personal, moral decisions based on those issues of faith or conviction. But it is not okay to enforce those views on your neighbor or on the public. If we say, "Christianity teaches us that every fertilized egg is a soul" and then go on to make laws that force non-Christians to comply (or Christians who do not choose to believe life begins at conception) with the resulting moral standard, then we are not respecting other faiths and belief systems, and we are enforcing a a religious code on our neighbors. I am sure that most everyone at Liberty Forest would defend one's right in a free society to move into a Hindu neighborhood and sell hamburgers or cooked rattlesnake. To the Hindus present, this would be a horrible crime of killing and eating holy, godlike creatures of worship. Who's to say they're wrong about those animals? That is part of their faith and moral worldview. Yet we would defend our restaurant owner his right to disagree with this religious, unproven, belief -- just as we must defend the liberties of those in Christian-filled communities who are homosexual, or Atheist, or whatever heresy they choose to partake in, if it is not objectively shown to be violent or criminal.

It is worth noting that "life begins at conception" is a fairly moderate version of long-held Western religious beliefs about sex and reproduction. Of course the Catholics are still technically against birth control because a condom does, in fact, prevent new souls from conception and birth. I have had evangelical Constitutionalists on DailyPaul tell me that wanking off is evil because "of all the little tadpoles" that die when you do it. Again, I don't necessarily have a problem with people who believe this, but would clearly demonstrate an authoritarian religious tyranny to make laws based on such beliefs that everyone must follow. Some wiseacre at this point might point out the implications of the government making jacking-off illegal and enforcing it using the surveillance powers of the Patriot Act, and of our entire 14 year old population subsequently going to jail as "pre-abortionists." I encourage you.

I think it is curious that no politicians (and precious few citizens) are able to qualitatively separate early/late term abortions -- objective acts of violence vs. acts merely perceived as violent within certain religious belief -- in this simple way. Dr. Paul has suggested, albeit timidly, legislation along such lines. Everyone else seems to be either hardcore anti-all abortion or hardcore pro-anytime abortion. Given the profound, qualitative differences between early/late term pregnancies & the lives they carry, this would appear to be absurd and myopic.

I am not religious and am strongly against abortion. You either respect life or you don't. The day I accept abortion is the day I will not longer care if another person walks into your house and kills you or any other person. I will shrug my shoulders and say, "not me, couldn't care less". It will also be the day I laugh at others when they scream about the loss of their natural rights in all areas as well.

 

[Slutter McGee]

Yes it is.


Yes it is.


Yes they are.


Moreover, the claims, "Utilitarianism is not religious in nature," "Egoism is not religious in nature," and "Locke's rights theories are not religious in nature," are all religious claims.

If you would like to expand on your argument feel free, but I am not going to get into what could be the most bullshit semantic arguement I have ever seen unless you give me some more for your claim.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[SkyPie]

Then what did you mean by your use of the word "foundation"?

I meant if you starve game over. Obviously reliance on foreign countries for food is not being free.

 

[SkyPie]

All ethical beliefs are inherently religious.

I might even go so far as to say that all beliefs about anything are inherently religious.

Ethical or did you mean moral?

 

[erowe1]

I meant if you starve game over. Obviously reliance on foreign countries for food is not being free.

It still looks to me like you're making a statement about the relative importance of farming.

 

[erowe1]

Ethical or did you mean moral?

Same thing.

 

[erowe1]

If you would like to expand on your argument feel free, but I am not going to get into what could be the most bullshit semantic arguement I have ever seen unless you give me some more for your claim.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Any question that pertains to religious issues, such as whether or not a god exists, whether or not absolute morality exists, and what logical consequences result from either the existence or nonexistence of any gods or moral absolutes, is a religious question. Belief systems that answer those religious questions in any given way are necessarily just as religious as belief systems that answer them any other way.

We can't have atheists going around saying to theists, "You answer the question of whether or not a god exists in the affirmative, whereas I answer it in the negative. Therefore, your answer to that question is a religious answer and and mine is not."

 

[SkyPie]

Same thing.

No it isn't. Do you have a dictionary? I love a good debate but you sir, seem to want to argue for the sake of doing so. A tyrant in your own right.

 

[Slutter McGee]

Any question that pertains to religious issues, such as whether or not a god exists, whether or not absolute morality exists, and what logical consequences result from either the existence or nonexistence of any gods or moral absolutes, is a religious question. Belief systems that answer those religious questions in any given way are necessarily just as religious as belief systems that answer them any other way.

We can't have atheists going around saying to theists, "You answer the question of whether or not a god exists in the affirmative, whereas I answer it in the negative. Therefore, your answer to that question is a religious answer and and mine is not."

Thats what I thought. You are playing semantic games. I was simply arguing that morality does not necessitate religion.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[erowe1]

I was simply arguing that morality does not necessitate religion.

So you are arguing either for a definition of "morality" that is somehow separable from religion or a definition of "religion" that is somehow separable from morality. Either way, isn't that already a semantic argument?

 

[erowe1]

Do you have a dictionary?

When I'm on the internet I usually just go to dictionary.com, or if I need something more meaty the OED.

Here's the first entry in the former for "ethics":

eth·ics
   
/ˈɛθɪks/ Show Spelled[eth-iks] Show IPA
–plural noun
1.
( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

Here is the first entry for the singular "ethic" in the latter:

A. adj. (Now usually ETHICAL.)

1. Relating to morals.

And here is the first entry for the plural "ethics" in the same:

II. pl. ethics.

2. (after Gr. {tau}{gagrave} {hlenis}{theta}{iota}{kappa}{gaacu}). The science of morals; the department of study concerned with the principles of human duty.

I apologize if something about the fact that I believe something differently than you do came across as tyranny (another word of whose definition we are apparently not in agreement, it seems).

 

[Slutter McGee]

So you are arguing either for a definition of "morality" that is somehow separable from religion or a definition of "religion" that is somehow separable from morality. Either way, isn't that already a semantic argument?

NO. But your broad use and definition of the word "religious" distort your idea, confusing it with something that it is not. Just because religions are based on a belief system does not mean all belief systems necessitate a religion.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

 

[erowe1]

NO. But your broad use and definition of the word "religious" distort your idea, confusing it with something that it is not. Just because religions are based on a belief system does not mean all belief systems necessitate a religion.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

But in actuality the distortion happens when people try to narrow the definition so that they can play a rhetorical trick where religion is implicitly an irrational superstition and some other belief system (generally their own) that they manage to exclude from the category of religion can be upheld as more rational and unbiased than it really is.

dictionary.com is helpful here again:

re·li·gion
   /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.

 

[Slutter McGee]

But in actuality the distortion happens when people try to narrow the definition so that they can play a rhetorical trick where religion is implicitly an irrational superstition and some other belief system (generally their own) that they manage to exclude from the category of religion can be upheld as more rational and unbiased than it really is.

dictionary.com is helpful here again:

In common usage.

Religion- A set of beliefs pertaining to a diety, a higher state of being, or an afterlife.

That is my definition. And like it or not, it is the definition that 99.9% of humanity believe. Oh wait I said "believe". I am being religious again.

You can ascribe any definition you want to the word. None of my business. Just don't get self-righteous when nobody knows what the hell you are talking about.

Give me a break,

Slutter McGee

 

[erowe1]

In common usage.

Religion- A set of beliefs pertaining to a diety, a higher state of being, or an afterlife.

Good. Then we agree that atheism (along with whatever ethical system any given atheist thinks comports with his atheist worldview) is a religion, since atheism is "a set of beliefs pertaining to a diety, a higher state of being, or an afterlife."

 

[low preference guy]

Good. Then we agree that atheism (along with whatever ethical system any given atheist thinks comports with his atheist worldview) is a religion, since atheism is "a set of beliefs pertaining to a diety, a higher state of being, or an afterlife."

How does not believing in a God imply that one has a particular belief about the afterlife?