|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 17, 2018 21:29:13 GMT
If by "masses" you mean the absolute majority of the population, then yes. As a German how do you view Nazi Germany? Surely it was a golden period of German history considering how much support it had? For 12 years. That's a very short timespam for a German state. And it has very little support today, so your information is outdated. I hear Kim Jong Un is a great leader as well, don't you know how popular he is in North Korea? I don't. And if your knowledge about North Korea has the same quality as your knowledge about Germany, then you don't know either. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 17, 2018 21:30:16 GMT
Laws reflect the ethics and morality of a society. Therefore, I can safely dismiss this opinion of yours. Where are these ethics and morals? In the society. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 17, 2018 21:43:00 GMT
Where are these ethics and morals? In the society. Show them to me. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 17, 2018 21:45:55 GMT
You are living in one. Unless you are a hermit, which I doubt. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 17, 2018 22:03:12 GMT
The piece of paper is not the law. The piece of paper is the means by which 'the law' is codified and disseminated for all to see/read. " Law is a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behaviour. Law is a system that regulates and ensures that individuals or a community adhere to the will of the state. State-enforced laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or established by judges through precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people." What does this have to do with atheism? or otherwise? Argue for your limitations, you get to keep them goz. You put way too much faith in the law and it doesn't do a darn thing to change things, except to keep things the same way they already are. It's the best and fairest system we, as a society, have. Without it there would be anarchy and chaos. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 17, 2018 22:12:47 GMT
Excellent news! Perhaps a decision to shoot your grandmother in the back of the head can be now taken, away from issues of law or the risk of prosecution? The law, after all, being irrelevant and all as you have decided? This could be a lot of fun. Because not all laws and circumstances are the same? If I was to criticise the faithful for doing this it would be because the laws of the bible are said to be given authority by the inspiration of a purported supernatural, rather than the due processes of men, where that source and authority remains questionable. The laws of men have been established through such quantifiable things as precedent, the weighed arguments of men, custom, debated legislative decision and the structures of working justice etc. The difference is everything. However this observation does not mean that the moral dictates of any scripture of whatever source are necessarily wrong in and of itself. As an atheist I don't pick anything from the Bible, or any other scripture, to follow by way of a moral law. Away from this however it might contain some useful rules for living, especially in the more empathetic NT while, as already noted, some law in scripture does correspond to secular law, such as the proscription on murder. But I think you would know that.
And you still haven't told me why law, of any sort is necessarily irrelevant - at least enough for you to decide to ignore it. Is it because it would bring more advantage to society and greater justice to all? Or because crime will still be committed 'anyway', so as not to bother chasing it? Would you still take such a laissez-faire attitude if you and yours were severely wronged? I doubt it.
"Perhaps a decision to shoot your grandmother in the back of the head can be now taken, away from issues of law or the risk of prosecution? The law, after all, being irrelevant and all as you have decided?" "There's no moral obligation to obey the law" is not the same as nor does it entail "Don't enforce good laws""The laws of men have been established through such quantifiable things as precedent, the weighed arguments of men, custom, debated legislative decision and the structures of working justice etc" Yes because the human race has such a good track record of making good ethical judgements. This is just argumentum ad populum basically."As an atheist I don't pick anything from the Bible, or any other scripture, to follow by way of a moral law. Away from this however it might contain some useful rules for living, especially in the more empathetic NT while, as already noted, some law in scripture does correspond to secular law, such as the proscription on murder. But I think you would know that." lol try reading that again."B-b-but the law says I shouldnt" is such a juvenile attitude, equivalent to "But my mom says I shouldnt". Grow a pair and stop letting people tell you what to do.Lugh, where does your awesomeness stem from? 
You will not convince an obstinate and inflexible mindset like Flaneur, even though he prides himself on his supposed and questionable logic. Laws were born out of religion, so any secular law is also born out of the principles of religious restraints. It seeps through and within and creates a virus in the thought process and corrupts.
People are not being free, because they believe in something else being the higher power, regardless of it being a God or the system which conditions us to become a slave to it. Rules and regulations only, to make one obey. Great point also about enforcing 'good' laws within oneself. That just stems down to attitude and behavior and having respect for each other. Laws even break their own laws, because they are not malleable. Consequence will also ensue from every action, but as a human race, we need to realize that each individual is their own law and higher power, not what some abstract and dubious someone or something institute tells us to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 17, 2018 22:18:15 GMT
Argue for your limitations, you get to keep them goz. You put way too much faith in the law and it doesn't do a darn thing to change things, except to keep things the same way they already are. It's the best and fairest system we, as a society, have. Without it there would be anarchy and chaos. It is the ONLY system we have at this phase of our evolution, and NO, it is NOT fair and best is all subjective.
Anarchy and chaos is only born out of the mind. It is all thought. If this is the case, then peace and understanding is born out of the mind as well. It is all mind. One must choose what is the appropriate path to follow themselves. This is done through conditioning and teaching. The current way of thought is flawed and corrupted and has created a broken system. I live through it, have no choice, but my own action is what is relevant in regards to how the universe will respond within my life and that goes for every single living human on this planet. The suffering is not being acknowledged, for fear of change. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 17, 2018 22:30:16 GMT
You are living in one. Unless you are a hermit, which I doubt. Your projected illusion and the labels and tags you place on something are yours not mine. We use these labels to make points, but at the end of the day, it is neither society or community, but just what it is and that is your awareness of life around you without any thought or notion of prejudice or judgement on anything. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 18, 2018 10:32:08 GMT
Everybody that can has a solid grasp of social interaction knew exactly what I was saying. If it suits you, and you wish this newly-qualified view taken of your original words now, that's fine. It appears then that when you said "The law is completely irrelevant, there's no moral obligation for you to obey the law." you really meant in fact, er, some law needs to be obeyed after all. You can see how it strains, and how to many it will appear as just another Trump moment, of rowing back in confusion. An ad hominem is not an argument. And to which the same reply pertains. When, since the law is completely irrelevant, or just 'made terribly' and so perhaps I just think senicide a 'bad' law, can I shoot your grandmother? A reminder appears in order here, since your representation is mischievous. It was you who first started out with "I find it really amusing that as an atheist you would look to a piece of paper for moral guidance, remind you of anyone on this board? Hint - these people believe in the Abrahamic god." which looks like a comparison of your own accord. To which I replied, rightly, that "You did not specify religious law, just 'the law' my friend." You then tried a strawman, again continuing your running distinction between divine and secular law: claiming I do, or said, something that I have not done on this thread, that "It's just funny that you criticise Christians for looking to the bible for moral guidance ..." to which I replied " If I was to criticise the faithful for doing this it would be because the laws of the bible are said to be given authority by the inspiration of a purported supernatural, rather than the due processes of men, where that source and authority remains questionable", quite a different emphasis to that you suggest. So then, we can see it was you brought things up to which I made reasonable reply. And you will note that my last comment was, even then, a conditional one. I hope that helps. Time to move on. So .. you appear, now, to be arguing that we should only obey "good laws", making no distinction between secular and religious ones, although generally law is overall "irrelevant" because men can have poor judgement. Which is surely contradictory, since laws are there to help mankind judge its own actions, are they not? And, if you are right and men make poor moral decisions, then why should one take the moral judgement of any man - you - in particular about laws' worth and whether to follow it or not? I don't know either. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 18, 2018 10:43:28 GMT
Lugh where does your awesomeness stem from? You will not convince an obstinate and inflexible mindset like Flaneur, even though he prides himself on his supposed and questionable logic. Great point also about enforcing 'good' laws within oneself. OK then, Cheese: since you have been unable elsewhere to describe to me the obvious advantages to all of an inequitable society, perhaps instead you can here come up with some for a society when one subjectively chooses 'good' and 'bad' laws to obey or not, or where law can apparently be considered 'irrelevant'. Which, one notes ironically, is just the golden rule, a condition for living - given as a law for living by Jesus. One is not even sure what this means. Perhaps you have not heard of laws which can be applied to varying degree? Which is fine in theory - until the individual's own 'law' and 'superior power' turns bad. Serial killers for instance often justify their actions through their supposedly higher philosophy of life which makes law irrelevant and/or while invoking their own rules over racial/sexual superiority. But I think you really know that. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 18, 2018 21:20:12 GMT
As a German how do you view Nazi Germany? Surely it was a golden period of German history considering how much support it had? For 12 years. That's a very short timespam for a German state. And it has very little support today, so your information is outdated. I hear Kim Jong Un is a great leader as well, don't you know how popular he is in North Korea? I don't. And if your knowledge about North Korea has the same quality as your knowledge about Germany, then you don't know either. Right but by your own logic in 1939 it was moral to discriminate against Jews. Kim Jong Un is basically universally loved in North Korea btw, as is Fidel Castro in Cuba, Vladimir Putin in Russia etc |
|
|
|
Post by socalboy83 on Jul 18, 2018 21:40:55 GMT
No
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 19, 2018 8:29:46 GMT
in 1939 it was moral to discriminate against Jews. Not only in 1939. For centuries, it was moral in any society dominated by Christians to discriminate against Jews. We have people like Martin Luther to thank for that. And today, there are still people who believe it's moral to discriminate against Jews. Examples: The BDS supporters, or some people in Palestine or Iran. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 19, 2018 9:51:45 GMT
Lugh where does your awesomeness stem from? You will not convince an obstinate and inflexible mindset like Flaneur, even though he prides himself on his supposed and questionable logic. Great point also about enforcing 'good' laws within oneself. OK then, Cheese: since you have been unable elsewhere to describe to me the obvious advantages to all of an inequitable society, perhaps instead you can here come up with some for a society when one subjectively chooses 'good' and 'bad' laws to obey or not, or where law can apparently be considered 'irrelevant'. Which, one notes ironically, is just the golden rule, a condition for living - given as a law for living by Jesus. One is not even sure what this means. Perhaps you have not heard of laws which can be applied to varying degree? Which is fine in theory - until the individual's own 'law' and 'superior power' turns bad. Serial killers for instance often justify their actions through their supposedly higher philosophy of life which makes law irrelevant and/or while invoking their own rules over racial/sexual superiority. But I think you really know that. Your avatar is very fitting. A puppet, or is that stooge! How ironic!
You do realize that subjectivity is an abstract and cannot be explained in concrete terms. It something that doesn't exist. Laws are an abstract and someone\something else's notion and perspective of what things are. I may or may not choose to buy into it or agree with it, but the bottom line is, I don't need others to tell me how I should act and think and if my behavior is not contravening any asinine written law, then it is irrelevant to my state of being. If I break a written law, it is also irrelevant, because I didn't pay heed to it. Consequences can ensue, but that is just part of the systematic game and depending on the severity of any action, most of it is bullshit. It is ultimately meaningless, manipulating and insidious, for an institution to tell me how dare I not follow it's golden rules and pay heed to it's self-aggrandizing and overbearing self-importance. This is kind of like how you express yourself though. It's no wonder you are disempowered. You give it away to others, that you think know better. How pitiful!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 19, 2018 11:09:25 GMT
in 1939 it was moral to discriminate against Jews. Not only in 1939. For centuries, it was moral in any society dominated by Christians to discriminate against Jews. We have people like Martin Luther to thank for that. And today, there are still people who believe it's moral to discriminate against Jews. Examples: The BDS supporters, or some people in Palestine or Iran. Thanks captain obvious so Hitler was a good leader then? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2018 11:41:30 GMT
Your avatar is very fitting. A puppet, or is that stooge! How ironic! As ironic as you resorting more and more to personal attacks in lieu of argument? That still doesn't my second question to you, Cheese. That's two you are avoiding now.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 19, 2018 12:58:51 GMT
Coming from you, that's not really a surprising statement. I disagree with it. Hitler made a mess out of Germany. Socially and economically, Germany was worse of after Hitler's reign than before. |
|
|
|
Post by Lugh on Jul 19, 2018 13:36:00 GMT
Coming from you, that's not really a surprising statement. I disagree with it. Hitler made a mess out of Germany. Socially and economically, Germany was worse of after Hitler's reign than before. Right but by your own logic his policies were brilliant, they were really popular. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 19, 2018 14:34:19 GMT
Your avatar is very fitting. A puppet, or is that stooge! How ironic! As ironic as you resorting more and more to personal attacks in lieu of argument? That still doesn't my second question to you, Cheese. That's two you are avoiding now. You just don't like the answers and responses you are getting, they don't make you look good. Yes, I know you are full of avoidance and in denial, that has been the whole point. No self-awareness whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 19, 2018 14:48:10 GMT
As ironic as you resorting more and more to personal attacks in lieu of argument? That still doesn't my second question to you, Cheese. That's two you are avoiding now. You just don't like the answers and responses you are getting, they don't make you look good. But you still haven't given any answers Cheese. You've just blustered, and been rude. QED. |
|
