(September 14, 2015 at 11:44 am)lkingpinl Wrote: How do you define something as evil without personifying. Person-hood is inherent to the question, so a moral law giver is required to raise the problem of evil. Where we differ is who that moral law giver is. Secularism will define it as subjective morality and thus the moral law giver is the person themselves who is raising the question about evil as they define the act in their own moral standard as evil.
I bolded a few statements above. Humanity cannot seem to agree on any one thing, there will always be dissenters and detractors so how do you propose a determining a secular concept of inherent worth of mankind?
I also bolded the the founder's part because you are correct in what you state, but you left out (not sure if intentional or not) the part where these inherent rights were endowed by our Creator. We do not make our own worth, as its impossible for all to agree on a secular version of inherent worth. Humanities worth is determined by its Creator and that isn't Mother Nature.
I left it out on purpose, because I didn't want to have to explain to someone, again, that Jefferson (who wrote that phrase) was not a person who believed in the Creator in the same way that you do, and that "Nature and Nature's God" was a Deist phrase that amounted to saying "we are born with these rights, not given them by a King by Divine Fiat, as you claim, Mr. King George III". Atheism wasn't really a thing, in 1776.
All societies, including ours, define a secular morality, based on an agreed cultural value-set (some inject God-concepts in there, but I've observed that it's almost without fail that "God" agrees with the social majority, so it's obviously still subjective and cultural).
However, in light of the fact that we did a pretty good job in 1789 of defining "personhood" and the rights that accompany this idea, yet have continued to expand it ever since... "Black people, too? Well okayyyy." (1865, 1868, and 1964-64) ; "Women, too? Well, okayyyy." (1920) ; "Mixed couples, too? Well, okayyyy." (1967) ; "Really, women too? Fiiiiine..." (1973 and 1992) ; "Now we have to recognize the inherent personhood of gays, too!? Okay, fine..." (2003 and 2015)... I'd say that we humans are still refining our secular ideas about personhood, but it's clear that they come from us, determined by ourselves.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
