Atheists becoming less unpopular?

[Neo-Scholastic]

As for "God" being the foundation of our legal rights, I would suggest that you read more of scholastic literature, such as Saint Thomas' Summa. 

Hmmm...must of missed that in all the discussion about natural law.

[The Valkyrie]

More and more people are losing their religious beliefs.

Still a long road to go, but the fight goes on.

[Jehanne]

As for "God" being the foundation of our legal rights, I would suggest that you read more of scholastic literature, such as Saint Thomas' Summa. 

Hmmm...must of missed that in all the discussion about natural law.

I answer that, as stated above (I-II:90:1 ad 2; Answers 3 and 4), a law is nothing else than a dictate of reason in the ruler by whom his subjects are governed. Now the virtue of any subordinate thing consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is regulated: thus we see that the virtue of the irascible and concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason; and accordingly "the virtue of every subject consists in his being well subjected to his ruler," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But every law aims at being obeyed by those who are subject to it. Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is "that which makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government. In this way good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man is called a good robber, because he works in a way that is adapted to his end.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2092.htm

[Neo-Scholastic]

Hmmm...must of missed that in all the discussion about natural law.

I answer that, as stated above (I-II:90:1 ad 2; Answers 3 and 4), a law is nothing else than a dictate of reason in the ruler by whom his subjects are governed. Now the virtue of any subordinate thing consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is regulated: thus we see that the virtue of the irascible and concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason; and accordingly "the virtue of every subject consists in his being well subjected to his ruler," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But every law aims at being obeyed by those who are subject to it. Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is "that which makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government. In this way good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man is called a good robber, because he works in a way that is adapted to his end.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2092.htm

I don't think you are reading that correctly. Aquinas is most definitely not saying that human rights come from earthly rulers. Notice how he referes to "true good" and "divine justice" and how someone can be good with respect to the ruler but still in opposition to Divine justice. Human rights are grounded not in the ruler's whim but in the Divine good to the extent that it comes through the ruler.

[Brian37]

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2092.htm

I don't think you are reading that correctly. Aquinas is most definitely not saying that human rights come from earthly rulers. Notice how he referes to "true good" and "divine justice" and how someone can be good with respect to the ruler but still in opposition to Divine justice. Human rights are grounded not in the ruler's whim but in the Divine good to the extent that it comes through the ruler.

I don't care what he said. If I had a nickle for every Christian apologist who said "He was really smart" I'd  make Bill Gates look like a broke homeless person. Every religion has members who like to point to their "smart people".

Aquinas doesn't point to any god, just like you don't accept it when others of other religions point to their historical figures.

[Amarok]

1. Agreed

2. I'm sure there is lot's of things "you don't see" . I am right

3. So wrote something that neither refutes my point . And wasted your time writing and my time reading

4. Nope evolution functions perfectly well without you tossing make believe in .

[AceBoogie]

It's a sad day when 40% of people would not vote for someone for being an atheist. People are fucking morons.

[chimp3]

It's not as if there is no secular foundation for such a position.

Try the UN preamble, for starters.

Recognition of inalienable human rights is not the same and having a foundation for them. It's kind of like your objections to intelligent design. Both ID and neo-Dawinists recognize the same complex systems but differ significantly on how those complex systems came to be. Wouldn't you say that ID proponents haven't adequately demonstrated that presence of a designer and that biological systems only appear to be designed? In other words, knowing "that something is" is not the same as knowing "why something is." So no, Khem, there is no secular foundation for human rights.

Claiming God's authority over reason as a foundation for inalienable rights is erroneous. First of all , your god is a fairy tale equal to the Easter Bunny. (We have been through this before.) There are secular arguments for human rights. All arguments for or against are human arguments. Just as humans created gods they reasoned out the concept of inalienable rights. The words of Jefferson are the ideas of a mammal. Nothing magic about Jeffersons argument as he was unable to apply it to his own status a slave owner. Then, let's think about who the argument for inalienable rights was lodged against : the christian kings of Europe. Those kings had a foundation for ruling over others based on a christian god's authority. When the Christian Kings/ Queens of Europe set their flags on this continent they claimed all the lands and people for Jesus. They set upon the native people like blood thirsty tyrants.  Why ? They had the power to do so. I am grateful to be living in a time when the only things left for christians to set their flags on are morality and creationism. Christians have lost much power due to good secular arguments. I imagine you will lose many more arguments in the future.

Neo-Scholastic is a mammal. All of his arguments are human arguments. The basis of his arguments is largely the human imagination.

[Jehanne]

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2092.htm

I don't think you are reading that correctly. Aquinas is most definitely not saying that human rights come from earthly rulers. Notice how he referes to "true good" and "divine justice" and how someone can be good with respect to the ruler but still in opposition to Divine justice. Human rights are grounded not in the ruler's whim but in the Divine good to the extent that it comes through the ruler.

I don't see "Liberty & Justice for All" in Aquinas' teachings.  In fact, Saint Thomas was quite content with the institution of slavery:

Considered absolutely, the fact that this particular man should be a slave rather than another man, is based, not on natural reason, but on some resultant utility, in that it is useful to this man to be ruled by a wiser man, and to the latter to be helped by the former, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 2). Wherefore slavery which belongs to the right of nations is natural in the second way, but not in the first. (Summa Theologica II II, 57, 3, ad 2)

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3057.htm

And, so, morality, and hence, the "natural law" evolves over time, something that one would expect under naturalism but not under super-naturalism.

[vorlon13]

It's a sad day when 40% of people would not vote for someone for being an atheist. People are fucking morons.

Ah, but withholding a vote is quite far removed from boiling in oil.  It is a sign of social evolution.

Some of these folks satisfied with merely not voting for someone could be condemned by their more pious brethren as vile slackers and apostates !!   And as apostates, they might wind up being the ones boiled !!