Ron Paul: Our Liberties Come From Our Creator

[swatmc]

Can't you see your silly circular argument? I'm asking you why violating the golden rule is wrong, and you are answering me by just asserting that golden rule is right.

Why is it wrong to have a morality that does not accept the golden rule?

Are you trying to make me say that morality is meaningless without god?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The thing is the North Koreans believe the same about there dear leader. Why is there view wrong but yours not?

Because the Bible warns of false prophets. We know that only Jesus can claim to be God. All men are imperfect and can only convince people that they are God through some sort of manipulation or brain-washing.

 

[Ranger29860]

What is morality without God?
Some people will think murder, rape, and theft are fine according to their personal morality.

Some people think murder, rape, and theft are fine with god so what is your point?

 

[AZKing]

You keep telling me things are "immoral"? Why is it wrong to do something someone else thinks is immoral?

I dunno, ask the overwhelming majority of Christian prisoners.

Why are Christians so overrepresented in prisons? Why do Christians have the highest divorce rate?

Where did they get their morals from? God, right?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Because you're violating the golden rule.

Morality is not complicated.

The Universe is complicated. I mean only a few hundred years ago people though that the "universe" consisted only of our own galaxy. But in reality there are hundred of millions of galaxies. Sheppards in the desert during the bronze age did NOT know this.

If there was in fact a god, my morality would not change.

If there was NOT a god, would your morality change?

The "golden rule" comes from the Bible. Outside of an absolute moral authority, the "golden rule" has no power or legitimacy except in the minds of those who wish to accept it. However, if someone does not want to follow the golden rule, you can't fault them for it because they simply believe differently than you and you have no objective basis for your morality against theirs.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Chairman Mao did not have a morality that followed the golden rule.

Why was his morality, which he felt very strongly in, wrong?

In the atheist universe, why is one conception of morality more valid than another one?

 

[Dr.3D]

Are you trying to make me say that morality is meaningless without god?

I believe he is just trying to understand where your moral compass gets it's bearings.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I dunno, ask the overwhelming majority of Christian prisoners.

Why are Christians so overrepresented in prisons? Why do Christians have the highest divorce rate?

Where did they get their morals from? God, right?

So the answer to my question is......what?


I asked: In the atheist view, why is it wrong to do something that someone thinks is immoral?

What is your answer?

 

[swatmc]

The "golden rule" comes from the Bible. Outside of an absolute moral authority, the "golden rule" has no power or legitimacy except in the minds of those who wish to accept it. However, if someone does not want to follow the golden rule, you can't fault them for it because they simply believe differently than you and you have no objective basis for your morality against theirs.

The golden rule does not come from the bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule#Ancient_Babylon

How did all these other societies outside of christianity come to the same conclusion and follow the golden rule?

 

[swatmc]

I believe he is just trying to understand where your moral compass gets it's bearings.

My moral compass comes from my own view of common sense and my interaction with my fellow human.

That is enough for me to NOT steal, cheat, rape, or kill.

Isn't that enough?

 

[AZKing]

The "golden rule" comes from the Bible.

Bullshit. Examples of the Golden Rule date back to just after prehistoric eras. It's quite likely that it existed during prehistory as well.

 

[Ranger29860]

I believe he is just trying to understand where your moral compass gets it's bearings.

Morals are subjective and change according to social needs. Certain behaviors have a negative impact on society and its survival (murder,rape etc.)
My moral compass comes from that pluss the upbringing in my personal community. Also some have developed through life experiences. None of my morals came from a religion.

Also to Aqua.

That question goes both ways. But the answer to the previous reply to me. Why is you prophet or god saying that he is the one any more valid than anyone else living or dead?
If it just a belief thing more power to you but i would like to here a counter argument that has little to no belief element.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Can't you see your silly circular argument? I'm asking you why violating the golden rule is wrong, and you are answering me by just asserting that golden rule is right.

The Golden Rule is derivative of self-evident axioms. Namely Self-Ownership and the NAP.

What's your argument? It's true because a book that was 100% written and translated by men says so? Serious question...

Why is it wrong to have a morality that does not accept the golden rule?

Because individuals own themselves, and individuals naturally reject the use of aggression against themselves.

Chairman Mao had a morality that did not accept the golden rule. Why was he wrong?

Because he actively broke the golden rule. It's not subject to opinion. Chairman Mao, like all humans, natureally does not want to be murdered himself, therefore it's wrong to murder other people because, like chairman Mao, they too, own themselves.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Are you trying to make me say that morality is meaningless without god?

Nobody is "trying" to make you do anything. You simply must admit that there is no basis for morality without an objective authority. Call it a god, a spirit, the winds of change, whatever you want, but you can't claim that others are wrong if it there is no objective moral authority. If it's society, well society can change any time. If someone doesn't want to follow society, there is no objective basis for saying they are wrong. If you truly believed in freedom in an atheistic world, then you would believe it was every man for himself. If you lock someone up for killing, then you are basically just asserting your morality on him through the will of society.

Question: how is that any different than the government taxing us for their own social agenda?

This is the problem with basing your morals on society. There is no basis for society without morals.

Why these morals must come from the one true God is another story, but a very compelling one, nonetheless. For example, no historian will deny that the Bible is the most authentic piece of literature in human history. It is also very scientifically accurate about many facts about which people "back then" supposedly could not have known. Society was completely different back then.

Here is a source for the "most authentic" claim, made by FF Bruce, one of the world's leading textual critics: http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/_christian/_articles/authenticity_of_the_bible.htm

 

[Sola_Fide]

The Golden Rule is derivative of self-evident axioms. Namely Self-Ownership and the NAP.

What's your argument? It's true because a book that was 100% written and translated by men says so? Serious question...



Because individuals own themselves, and individuals naturally reject the use of aggression against themselves.



Because he actively broke the golden rule. It's not subject to opinion. Chairman Mao, like all humans, natureally does not want to be murdered himself, therefore it's wrong to murder other people because, like chairman Mao, they too, own themselves.

In the atheist view, why is it wrong to reject the idea of self-ownership? Why are you being bigoted against competing views of morality? Why is one conception of morality more valid than the other?

What is the justification for the golden rule in atheism? I know what the justification is in Christianity, but I'm asking you what the justification is in atheism.

You are telling me it is immoral to not follow the golden rule? Why? Why is it wrong for me to do something you think is immoral?

 

[swatmc]

Nobody is "trying" to make you do anything. You simply must admit that there is no basis for morality without an objective authority. Call it a god, a spirit, the winds of change, whatever you want, but you can't claim that others are wrong if it there is no objective moral authority.

I don't believe in an objective authority, ESPECIALLY one that may or may not exist. I try to be moral for it's own sake. Would your morality change if there was no god?

If it's society, well society can change any time. If someone doesn't want to follow society, there is no objective basis for saying they are wrong. If you truly believed in freedom in an atheistic world, then you would believe it was every man for himself. If you lock someone up for killing, then you are basically just asserting your morality on him through the will of society.

I still think that the golden rule applies to a society that believes in god or one that does not believe in god. The problem is that it's hard for people to actually abide by that rule for a multitude of reasons.

Question: how is that any different than the government taxing us for their own social agenda?

This is the problem with basing your morals on society. There is no basis for society without morals.

I don't think the government should impose taxes on the people except for maintaining roads, civil services, and national defense.

I think it's immoral to tax one's income because you are taking money out of their pocket and giving it to the government, and in all likelihood, it will be wasted.

I think all on the RP forums could agree with that.

Why these morals must come from the one true God is another story, but a very compelling one, nonetheless. For example, no historian will deny that the Bible is the most authentic piece of literature in human history. It is also very scientifically accurate about many facts about which people "back then" supposedly could not have known. Society was completely different back then.

Here is a source for the "most authentic" claim, made by FF Bruce, one of the world's leading textual critics: http://www.africanaquatics.co.za/_christian/_articles/authenticity_of_the_bible.htm

I am about to read this "authentic claim" of the bible but I am suspicious.

Can you admit there are certain parts of the bible that are physically impossible, immoral, and/or inaccurate?

 

[Theocrat]

When Ron Spits From the DoI, Others Spit Venom

"Our liberties come from our Creator." Wow. Such a powerful phrase, and yet, it sparks the biggest controversies in this forum. Can't we all just get along...with our Creator?

 

[low preference guy]

"Our liberties come from our Creator." Wow. Such a powerful phrase, and yet, it sparks the biggest controversies in this forum. Can't we all just get along...with our Creator?

If he existed, maybe.

 

[swatmc]

"Our liberties come from our Creator." Wow. Such a powerful phrase, and yet, it sparks the biggest controversies in this forum. Can't we all just get along...with our Creator?

I cut the founding fathers serious slack with their use of the word "creator."

Isn't it interesting how they didn't say "Jesus" or "The Christian god" but left it up to interpretation?

 

[Sola_Fide]

The internet never ceases to amaze me...