Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Darkstar]

Empathy is not a sufficient cause of the morality of something (consider a case in which people are empathetic but they get the wrong answer) nor is empathy in all cases good (in a case in which you were fighting in a war, it would not necessarily be good to be empathetic toward your enemy, and if the war was a just war, to fail to fight could be considered morally blameworthy, an act of cowardice).

But the enemy would also be discarding empathy, so reason would tell you that you would be justified in treating them the same.

Empathy is an important part of morality, but it does not ground morality in anything, unless it is grounded teleologically.

Naturally, I disagree. Justice, when morailty is severely breached, would often not be considered moral outside of the domain of justice, I should note.

The cause isn't unknown, it is rather explicit: because we decided it is. We decided this because we value our own lives (mostly) and would want others to value them as well. We have empathy for the suffering of others because we can understand what it we be like if we were in their position. We would not want to die, and therefore we feel empathy for others and do not want them to die either.

If the cause is known, and it is human opinion, then it is incommensurable with other opinions and has no authority higher than the person making the claim.

What you are describing is good feelings to have, but they do not explain why those feelings are important, and why they are the most important feelings in the world to have.

Do you know what would happen to the world if human rights disappeared over night? They're pretty important...

I'm not sure I understand what you are talking about. I was only explaining how even a selfish person would have a motivation to follow the golden rule if they knew others would follow it only if they did.

Motivation is different from having an authority.

You will need to define "authority" then.

Anarchy, YEAH!!!!

I am not an anarchist, but I do not worship the state, I am not a nationalist, and I do not blindly accept the nationalistic dogma that liberals put before me.

I don't worship the state either, and I think nationalism is highly illogical, so we're on the same page in that regard.

I obey the law out of a duty to God, but I do not give human authorities any more authority than they have.

Okay, so how do you determine exactly how much authority they have?

3. Government is by no means the origin of morality.

What is the origin of morality?

Evolution of morality
I'm not 100% positive, but this is your best bet at the moment. It should be noted that morality didn't evolve purely out of genetic change, but from societal constructs that would, you know, keep it from becoming a free for all where the greediest and most selfish prevailed.

5.The rights are established by the people writing the contract because they are required to protect these rights. (By the way, the constitution says that the rigths to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are self evident. Do you disagree, and if so on what grounds?

I do not worship the government and I will not bow down to human ordinances as if they come from God. The constitution cannot give any rights to people, it cannot give people the right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, it does not have those rights to give away.

Well, rather it protects the rights that are there. The constitution says the rights are self evident to begin with. Of course, if someone wants to act as if rights don't exist, then their own rights don't exist either, and they become extremely vulnerable.

What liberal thinkers? Or do you mean the concept of rights in general? I'm trying to argue through reason (not raw logic) the merits of those propositions, rather than appeal to authority by saying something like "Would our founding fathers be wrong?" (assuming you're American, that is)

You are treating the founding fathers as religious thinkers, as if they came from God. What are they? Who are they that I should care about them? Some very sketchy characters among the bunch, Benjamin Franklin was no saint. Why should I care what they say? Of course, I am obligated to obey the law. But why should I see their beliefs as having more authority than my own?

I am not encouraging law breaking, but lets be realistic, Bill Clinton is not a spiritual leader. Neither were the founding fathers. They are men. I will never worship a man.

I don't worship the founding fathers just because I agree that human rights are good. The difference between us is that you think the founding fathers need to be like religious thinkers, whereas I don't think religion is necessary.

It sounds like basically you interpret something you don't understand to mean god must have made it, rather than presenting any direct evidence for god himself. Am I too far off?

No, I have plenty of direct evidence for God that I will get to in a minute, but this thread is already pages and pages. Oh well, I will post it anyways.

So, what you are saying is basically that without actual science of emperical evidence, philosophical musing won't prove anything? Now, about your evidence for god...it isn't scientific, is it?

I am saying that philosophy has some value, but it typically is more of a tool for raising questions than actually getting concrete solutions.

This is the same way that natural theology works. Natural theology is a good way of putting a lot of pieces together about God and saying it is probable that God exists. Then, based on this knowledge, as well as realizing the nature of your own sin and separation from God, you turn away from sin follow God, if you pursue God, God will reveal God's self to you.

There are a number of atheists here who were strongly theistic for decades, but never found god. I don't know how natural theology works, but I would imagine that science would say it is improbable that god exists. What has natural theology conrtibuted to the world? (honest question)
Why do we need religious thinkers anyway, if you can get all the answers direct from god himself?

---

You really have to read and study the arguments carefully. I don't think that I can put one in 100 words and you will grasp it. You have to study and become very familiar with all of them and how they relate to each other. That is really the only way to study natural theology. It is such an abstract subject that you must dive into it or else you will not get much from it. I don't think that putting the cosmological argument or teleological argument here I am really going to do it justice.

These will take a while to read, and even longer to respond to. Perhaps this particular part of the debate should go in another thread.