RE: Nature's Laws
May 16, 2015 at 6:18 pm
(This post was last modified: May 16, 2015 at 6:25 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
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.
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?
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?