Yeah, the idea that only theists have morals which may affect law is silly ... but that wasn't really what I was getting at. Many atheists have to deal with impositions in daily life as well, because so many theists refuse to keep their superstitions to themselves.

You keep your religion to yourself and we'll get along just fine. You get preachy on me, well, that's a different story.

Here in America, I'm continually amazed by how many Christians have such a tenuous grasp on common courtesy.

---

(May 15, 2015 at 5:43 pm)Freedom4me Wrote:

(May 15, 2015 at 4:18 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: No, they are assigned through collective human experience. Don't like having a monarchy decide your religion for you? Let's move somewhere else and take the good things we learned from that government and apply some new ones.

The founders of the U.S. believed that black people were a lesser species, and decided that a black man counted as only 3/5 of a person. What does that say about your idea of 'intrinsic human value?'

The problem isn't in the idea that all human beings have certain inherent rights as human beings, in this case the problem was with those who wanted to oppress and enslave other human beings...merely on the basis of race.  If there is no God, how would we have determined that race-based slavery was wrong?

Easy. No one likes having the products of their labor seized without compensation, nor does anyone in their right mind care for having their freedom of action, association, and speech abrogated. It follows, from simple empathy, that one ought not treat others in that manner.

Tell me -- did you really need that explained to you?

(May 15, 2015 at 5:43 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: If there is no God, how would we have determined that race-based slavery was wrong?

On the other hand, if there is a God it's apparent 'freedom from slavery' comes and goes on a whim according to how He's feeling that particular time period.

Here is a summary of what the bible has to say about slavery. I'll leave it to the reader to determine whether God wasn't powerful enough to stop people doing it, or was fine allowing them to do it. (Or both.)

Check out what Jesus had to say about slavery, on the same page.

Regarding free will: God screws with people's free will multiple times in the bible. He has no respect for it.

http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

(May 16, 2015 at 6:18 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(May 15, 2015 at 5:43 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: The problem isn't in the idea that all human beings have certain inherent rights as human beings, in this case the problem was with those who wanted to oppress and enslave other human beings...merely on the basis of race.  If there is no God, how would we have determined that race-based slavery was wrong?

Easy. No one likes having the products of their labor seized without compensation, nor does anyone in their right mind care for having their freedom of action, association, and speech abrogated. It follows, from simple empathy, that one ought not treat others in that manner.

Tell me -- did you really need that explained to you?

Actually, I don't think you explained anything.  As some atheists have suggested here, our individual rights come from a consensus within our tribe, group, nation, etc.  So the USA tolerated slavery that was based upon the notion that Blacks are only 3/5 human.  But here, you seem to take a very different approach. Your approach to individual rights involves empathy.  In your opinion, is your personal empathy an adequate justification for anything you might decide to do?

Should any single thing be justification for any given thing?  Is that really the question you're asking? Do you think that the answer to this question will bear out some truth? Is your love of candy an adequate justification for killing the candymaker and taking his goods.....or for skullfucking hens in S. Carolina - or maybe spitting on babies at the nearest ER?

-all of the above, none, other, anything in specific?

(May 17, 2015 at 6:55 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: Actually, I don't think you explained anything.  As some atheists have suggested here, our individual rights come from a consensus within our tribe, group, nation, etc.  So the USA tolerated slavery that was based upon the notion that Blacks are only 3/5 human.  But here, you seem to take a very different approach. Your approach to individual rights involves empathy.  In your opinion, is your personal empathy an adequate justification for anything you might decide to do?

Do you need to look up the word consensus? Where do you think the consensus comes from?

Individuals make up the tribe, group, nation, etc. Those individuals draw upon many things to come up with their mores. Environment, familial upbringing, social sphere, etc. One of those things they draw upon is their sense of empathy. I wouldn't want to be treated this way, so I shouldn't treat others this way.

But, to answer your question with a question, what does the golden rule say?

(May 17, 2015 at 7:08 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(May 17, 2015 at 6:55 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: Actually, I don't think you explained anything.  As some atheists have suggested here, our individual rights come from a consensus within our tribe, group, nation, etc.  So the USA tolerated slavery that was based upon the notion that Blacks are only 3/5 human.  But here, you seem to take a very different approach. Your approach to individual rights involves empathy.  In your opinion, is your personal empathy an adequate justification for anything you might decide to do?

Do you need to look up the word consensus? Where do you think the consensus comes from?

Individuals make up the tribe, group, nation, etc. Those individuals draw upon many things to come up with their mores. Environment, familial upbringing, social sphere, etc. One of those things they draw upon is their sense of empathy. I wouldn't want to be treated this way, so I shouldn't treat others this way.

But, to answer your question with a question, what does the golden rule say?

I see what you're saying.  Empathy is just one of many factors by which people form a consensus.  But there is still something that is unclear to me in all of this.  If the consensus here in the U.S. never changed, and it was still the consensus that Blacks are only 3/5 human, and that race-based slavery is OK, then what?  Would that mean that Black Americans have no human rights?   

No, it would mean America would still have slavery.

(May 18, 2015 at 9:57 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: I see what you're saying.  Empathy is just one of many factors by which people form a consensus.  But there is still something that is unclear to me in all of this.  If the consensus here in the U.S. never changed, and it was still the consensus that Blacks are only 3/5 human, and that race-based slavery is OK, then what?  Would that mean that Black Americans have no human rights?   

It is not just the consensus. The consensus is very often wrong.

If the consensus was that blacks are 3/5 of a human, and that slavery was okay, it would still be wrong. You know how you can tell? Ask the slaves how they feel about the arrangement. 

Morality is all about the well being. I'm not sure why you are having a problem with this? How is the well being of those in slavery?

Do you agree with the following?

Life is preferable to death.
Health is preferable to disease.
Freedom is preferable slavery. 
Comfort is preferable to pain.   

If you do, it doesn't even require empathy to be able to tell that slavery is wrong. All it takes is a bit of rational thinking. 

---

(May 18, 2015 at 9:57 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: I see what you're saying.  Empathy is just one of many factors by which people form a consensus.  But there is still something that is unclear to me in all of this.  If the consensus here in the U.S. never changed, and it was still the consensus that Blacks are only 3/5 human, and that race-based slavery is OK, then what?  Would that mean that Black Americans have no human rights?   

Here is another way of looking at it. 

Philosopher John Rawls came up with a great thought experiment called "the Veil of Ignorance". Here is good summary from Wiki:


The "veil of ignorance", along with the original position, is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g., slavery) based upon the following thought experiment: parties to the original position know nothing about their particular abilities, tastes, and position within the social order of society. When such parties are selecting the principles for distribution of rights, positions, and resources in the society they will live in, the veil of ignorance prevents them from knowing about who they will be in that society. For example, for a proposed society in which 50% of the population is kept in slavery, it follows that on entering the new society there is a 50% likelihood that the participant would be a slave. The idea is that parties subject to the veil of ignorance will make choices based upon moral considerations, since they will not be able to make choices based on self- or class-interest.

 
As John Rawls put it, "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like." The idea of the thought experiment is to render obsolete those personal considerations that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation. 

Oh yay. Another former atheist come here to impress us with arguments we've seen a thousand times.

(May 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: I'm not saying that a theistic explanation is the only possible one.  But theism does seem to accommodate a world view that encompasses more than just the natural world.

Why must a world view encompass more than the natural world when there is precisely zero evidence(*) for anything beyond the natural?

(May 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Freedom4me Wrote: That was an important thing because I think that there is more to "reality" than just the physical stuff of nature.

And, what evidence(*) leads you to believe there is anything beyond the natural?

*Evidence being that which is both testable and verifiable, and supports the claim you're trying to make.