A question for atheists?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Neutral, Aug 1, 2011.

  1. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    We have a First Amendment and I am usually happy to bear true witness for goodness and not badness whenever possible.

    It had to do with the moral of true witness bearing as it applies to our temporal and secular and federal Constitution.

    I am not sure what you are referring to; I am merely presenting an opposing point of view instead of a lot of commentary that has nothing to do with the topic I am willing to argue.

    Actually, there is federal doctrine called States' rights regarding limiting the powers of an overreaching and less fiscally and less creditworthy federal Congress and government. That doctrine is enumerated in our Tenth Amendment.

    I agree to disagree. Even the judicature of the United States is not immune from political passions of the moment. Our Supreme Court has held at one time that slavery was legal, they have since recognized their error.

    How does your point of view account for the abomination of hypocrisy and no anti-hypocrisy laws. In my opinion the abomination of hypocrisy is worse than any drug addiction.

    How do you account for a religious moral account in a Bible that states a Creator Intelligently Designed a plant that can be used as a drug?
     
  2. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The fact is there are many plants that are used for medicinal purposes, and many of those plants have other uses - like hemp for rope, etc.

    The fact that people abuse things is not of God, it is of man.

    There is nothing wrong with acknolwedging that drugs are harmful to humanity. I suggest you study up on what is happening in Asia with Opium, see how it was used by the West to break a once proud Nation in China, and how it is now being used to finance a war that is killing your fellow Americans.

    Perhaps you should study the chain of addiction that is crippling the nacest Afghan economy, and whose corruption and addiction have greatly destablized Pakistan even as it feeds an insurgency that threatens to reimpose a total lack of liberty on an unwilling populace.

    Lok South of the border and see what is happening.

    Then tell me who the hypocrite is.

    I am edcuated enough to know these things, and even if I were not religious, the obviousness of teh wrong of hard drugs is well ... obvious.
     
  3. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Bearing false witness to our own supreme law of the land is a form of hypocrisy.

    Why do you believe any republic would be worse off with Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States of the Union?
     
  4. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, first of all, just to correct the record.... the Bible makes no statements with regard to "intelligent design"... the usage of that descriptive term is a fabrication of man that was supposed to aid in the understanding of creation, but has somehow missed the mark.

    As for the plants that have been created (as in the creation story), the Bible also says that 'Gen 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.' This leaves me only to conclude that the particular use that man has placed upon those things that God created (everything) was an intelligent design of mankind. Subsequently, if a product made (created) by God is put to a use that is seemingly evil, then that act of evil intent is upon man. Not God. God gave man the intelligence that man needed to survive and conquer the world, and gave to man the free will to do as man pleased to do.... man made guns ... guns get used to KILL humans... is that a good thing? No? Not necessarily? Maybe? Who makes the choice of how that/those guns are used?
     
  5. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It must have been Intelligently Designed if done by a god with perfect knowledge of good and evil.
     
  6. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Is there something in the Constitution that violates the ten commandments?

    Or are you seriously thinking that in a Nation with a majority Christians, that we reject the constitution?

    Why do atheists so consistantly abandon logic and reality in order to ask silliness like this?

    Daft.
     
  7. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you starting to run out of logic and reason?

    Why do you believe any republic would be worse off with Commerce that is well Regulated among the several States of the Union?
     
  8. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't.

    What on earth would posses you to think that accepting the ten commandments means we abandon either the constitution or economics?

    Someone has clearly run out of logic and reason, and the idea that only atheists understand how commerce works is ludicrious. One would have to be hallucinating to think that expressing such an opinion was accurate in any way.

    Once again, perhaps you should stop preaching, and take notice when people ask questions, the first time mind you, about how the ten commandments conflict with the US Constitution?

    They don't.

    And someone has to be seriously uneducated about both, and completely abandon logic itself to make such an absurd claim.
     
  9. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48

    I am well aware of the Dred Scott decision. As well, I am also well aware of the 9th, 10th, 13th' and 14th amendments, which IMHO you should also devote some time in studying in their entirety.

    The point I was making is exactly what that Constitutional provision states which is contrary to what you have suggested. By inference the Constitution does allow for the laws which prohibit the things that you are complaining about. But you seemingly don't want to see or recognize that fact.
     
  10. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,151
    Likes Received:
    30,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Enforcement of both the Ten Commandments and the Constitution would be a contradiction. Several of the commandments would conflict with the first amendment.
     
  11. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yeppir... Thou shalt not steal
    Thou shalt not kill
    Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor
    Thou shalt not put no other gods before me...

    First amendment... freedom of religion... spoken of in more detail in the DOI.

    http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/7/c71b.htm
    The laws of nature and natures God...
     
  12. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,151
    Likes Received:
    30,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can personally believe that the Commandments are a good way to live your own life, but enforcing them as law (i.e. the way they were originally used) would violate the 1st amendment.

    The Ten Commandments actively suppressed freedom of religion. Telling people that they can have no other God except yours, telling them which days to keep holy, forbidding them from making religious images, forbidding them from taking your Lord's name in vain, etc. would all violate their freedom of religion.
     
  13. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How, specifically, and with case example, has the Ten Commandments suppressed freedom of religion? There are also laws which say that you are restricted from 'jay-walking' (still in some states), does that violate your freedom of liberty? There are also laws that say that you cannot arbitrarily enter into another country without getting permission from some bureaucrat... does that violate your freedom of liberty? There are also laws that celebrate the 'presidents' of the United States (some of which are not Theists) is that not a violation of my rights to freedom of religion... knowing that some of these men worked against God and then forcing me to acknowledge them as some hero or something?

    Identify that God that is spoken of in the DOI and referenced as 'natures God'. Does that God have a name? Does that God have a particular theological background? No? Then my goodness, I guess the authors of the Constitution and the DOI allowed for each of us to submit to the God of our Choice... thus Freedom of Religion...

    "Forbidding them from making religious images"... not hardly... Washington has the dome of the capitol plainly marked with various gods .... Even to the point of depicting George Washington sitting on the throne of God ascending into heaven... LOL..

    You need to do some more research....
     
  14. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't believe anyone is asking us to enforce the ten commandments and legal writ.

    However, the portion of the ten commandments that would be considered law - are fully in accordance with the law.

    Things like adultry will continue to befuddle our legal system based on context, but no one who is moral can consider adultry to be a good a thing.

    The two are simply not incompatible.

    If everyone followed the ten commandments? There would be much less need for laws in the first place.
     
  15. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But you would if you could, wouldn't you?
    I don't think you actually addressed Yard's point, esp re the First Amendment vis-a-vis establishment.

    Do you still consider it adultry if it's done in the open? IE: "open marriages" and "open relationships?"

    I agree. I am sick of my neighbor coveting my donkey.
     
  16. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why the hell do you think you know me enough to answer question fo me?

    And the answer is no, specifically because of the first commandment. You cannot force God on people. Just like you cannot force atheism on anyone. Man must be free to choose their own spiritual path - period.


    I don;t believe he made one. Further, the question wasn;t whether we SHOULD make the tend commandments law, it was about:

    #1 - accepting the ten commandments means you invalidate the economic clauses of teh US Constitution.

    #2 - acknowledgeing that the ten commandments are no incompatiable with the US COnstitution.

    How that became, "it shouldn't be law," when it isn't .... atheists looking to change the goal posts to something they can debate and win.


    Yep. If you are married and you make a commitment to one another you keep it. If you can't, don't get married.

    Pretty damb simple.


    Well, you might want to talk to Wolverine then, because he is sickened by Leviticus, and that includes a commandment to avoid doing exactly what you are sickened by.

    My guess? Your neighbor is an atheist. Clearly he is no someone who has actually read the Bible. (Neither are you apparently).
     
  17. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,151
    Likes Received:
    30,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When they were first introduced. Worshiping any other god, making religious images, and taking the Lord's name in vain, and working on the Sabbath were all punishable by death. That's a suppression of religious freedom.

    Not in any unreasonable way, no.

    No, and also completely irrelevant. Enforcement of the Ten Commandments and enforcement of the 1st Amendment are incompatible. Do you dispute that?

    Which ones weren't?

    No, but executing me for worshiping another God, for working on your holy day, for making a religious image of my own, etc. would be a violation of my rights and freedom of religion, which is exactly how the 10 Commandments were originally enforced.

    If anyone forces you to acknowledge them as some sort of hero, yes, that would be a violation of your rights. No one is doing that.

    You are correct. I'm not sure why you are pretending that I disagree with you on this.

    Um . . . exactly. Who are you arguing with?

    The Constitution allows me to submit to the God of my choice (or none at all), BUT THE 10 COMMANDMENTS DO NOT.

    Again, who are you arguing with? I know that the laws of this nation do not prevent me from making religious images. I never said they did. I said that THE 10 COMMANDMENTS WOULD FORBID ME FROM DOING SO. This is why I'm saying that enforcing the Constitution and enforcing the 10 Commandments would be incompatible.

    You need to read what I actually said before you comment on it.
     
  18. yardmeat

    yardmeat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2010
    Messages:
    56,151
    Likes Received:
    30,617
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You'd be wrong about that. I grew up in a Church that wished to do just that.

    I don't think anyone here is suggesting that we do that, but when you said that the 10 Commandments and the Constitution are compatible, there needs to be some clarification. If you mean that people can follow the Commandments personally and not seek for them to be used as they were originally used, then yes. But they were originally intended as laws, and as laws they are incompatible with the Constitution (our Law of the Land).

    Originally, all of the Commandments were considered law. That's what they were for. There are a handful that are in accordance with our current law. Don't murder, don't steal, don't lie in court. Those are good ones.

    I agree, though I do not believe that it should be punishable by death, and I say that as a victim of said crime.

    If everyone followed laws there would be less need to enforce them, yes.
     
  19. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Your banter would be more effective after you present a better argument.

    Some claim that a higher power such as that ascribed to the Creator of those religious Commandments, would be sufficient to induce them to commit forms of treason against our republic if there is any "conflict of laws." Some, alleged conservatives may feel the same way.

    Our federal Constitution and our Ten Amendments, must be more supreme than any religious commandments that are repugnant to our Constitution; even if only due to the supremacy clause of our federal Constitution. In my opinion, it is one reason our Founding Fathers ordained and established our secular Morals and legal ethics for us.

    In my opinion, a problem with alleged conservatives claiming religious forms of morality, is that they don't seem to know the difference between amorality and morality. Consider that in the US, religion has been used to justify slavery, even with a New Testament.

    Ten religious Commandments sometimes conflict with individual liberty as enumerated in our supreme law of the land. Until relatively recently, purely religious based laws have been overturned in favor of the concept of individual liberty as embodied in our federal Constitution. It is some progress considering it has been over two hundred years since our federal Constitution went into effect.
     
  20. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I seem to have an adequate understanding of our federal Constitution. You are welcome to present an argument, instead of simply resorting to fallacy by appealing to ignorance.

    Where, outside of DC and other federal property, is our federal Congress authorized to "legislate in all Cases whatsoever"? How do you account for States' rights as enumerated in our Tenth Amendment?
     
  21. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    What isn't covered by our Ten Amendments?

    How much less comprehensive are ten religious commandments, from the Iron Age. In my opinion, we would need fewer laws if we could simply be moral enough to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land as well.

    Consider that we even have a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge of allegiance to our own republic; why is it that persons who claim to have morals and faith in a god, cannot seem to bear true witness as a form of moral absolutism and form of homage to the god they claim to worship?
     
  22. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    First question: Nowhere.
    Second question: There are no states rights, as all states have become the child corporation of the mother corporation,,, the united states. If states still possessed 'rights' as sovereign countries/states, then the bill initiated by several states to secede from the union within the past few years would have been granted.

    Now a few further questions for you. How do you account for the War Powers Act in regard to the manner in which the President can over-ride anything that Congress attempts to place in front of him for approval? How do you account for the Presidents ability to enact law by virtue of Executive Order rather than having a bill passed through Congress? How do you account for the Supreme Court being able to over-ride the law-making decisions of the Congress?

    Of course this is taking the thread way off topic... but what the hey... you don't seem to care about that... so go for it.
     
  23. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    How do you account for our Tenth Amendment? Or do you subscribe to the abomination of hypocrisy regarding our own supreme law of the land?

    Wasn't the War Powers act intended to limit an overly energetic chief magistrate, especially one without a Just cause while using the Peoples' money? Only our federal Congress can enact legislation. Our wars on abstractions are simply attempts by some elected representatives to waste our exorbitantly expensive superpower for no real good reason, other than pandering to some constituencies.

    Congress can legislate laws that can override an executive order. It is called a doctrine of separation of powers and was intelligently designed by our Founding Fathers and incorporated into our supreme law of the land.

    The same holds true for the Supreme Court as a check and balance on excessive use of arbitrary command economics by our legislators.

    I am glad you ceded the point about our wasteful and non, specifically enumerated War on Drugs.
     
  24. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I have ceded nothing, but will remind you again, that even now you are attempting to continue this thread down a road that was not intended by the OP. If you desire to discuss pure politics, then go to that specific forum.
    Have a nice evening.
     
  25. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You grew up in a church that wanted the first command ment forced on people? Can I get the name of that church please, because I have been to a lot of churches, and have never been in one that advocated that.

    I realize there are some fundies out there, but lets not use extreme as if they are normal.

    Well, when atheists say they are incompatible, they should probably clarify their intent as well - like the ten commandment being the abandonment of economics for instance, which is absurd.

    The ten commandments are not meant to be law. They are meant to be personal instructions. Five for us and five for how we treat others. The cost of violation is never listed as legal charge, its listed as sin.

    Well, we disagree, because tribal codes and adjudication processes, dispute resolution, those things that legal systems do - are not what the ten commandments are for. They are for us - as individuals. They are not meant to be a court.

    I don;t think adultry should be punishable by death either, but it is certainly not a criminal act in our society. Increasingly, its being swept aside even in divorce proceedings.

    However, as a deployed Solider I have seen people both inflict horrible pain on a spouse and have horrible pain inflicted upon them. Adultry is one of the most destructive things in the world ...

    It is personally wrong, legally its a nusance.

    The point of the ten commandments was personal responsibility, not responsibility thrust upon us. Adultry has no legal consequence outside certain institutions .... the choice to do it or not rests with how one percieves themselves and others alone.

    God has that one exactly right.

    If everyone lived, or even attempted to live, a virtuous life, there would be less need for either laws or their enforcement.
     

Share This Page