LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

[columbia]

I think I’ve mentioned this term before, but I refer to those folks as “evangelical atheists.” And personally, I would rather spend a week trapped at a convention of Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses than be in the company of evangelical atheists.

I live in Kansas, nine miles from the nearest town of any consequence. I'm an ardent atheist. I interact with dozens of people every day.

Funnily enough, the only people with whom I've had face-to-face conversations about religion are the religious folk who COME TO MY DOOR. I have never heard of atheists going door-to-door trying to convert people.

Perhaps you should wear something more revealing next time?

[redwill]

This is the ceiling of the Supreme Court courtroom on the eighth floor of the City-County building:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32215181@N08/5506691171/

OK.

Any comment on that?

[Shyster]

This is the ceiling of the Supreme Court courtroom on the eighth floor of the City-County building:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32215181@N08/5506691171/

OK.
Any comment on that?

I don't care that it's there. I firmly support the separation of church and state to the extent that involves the state passing any law that would enforce religious dictates. But I don't support the idea that the First Amendment, for example, would prohibit someone from saying a prayer at a high-school graduation.

[redwill]

I don't care that it's there. I firmly support the separation of church and state to the extent that involves the state passing any law that would enforce religious dictates. But I don't support the idea that the First Amendment, for example, would prohibit someone from saying a prayer at a high-school graduation.

You have no problem with the fact that the First Amendment says ... well, you know what it says ... and yet some people want to have a moral code posted prominently in US courtrooms which starts out with "I AM THE LORD THY GOD. THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GOD BEFORE ME."

[Shyster]

Not unless they try to force me to adhere to that, or want to cite it as precedent in legal opinions.

[redwill]

Maybe we should have a contest as to what other historical legal nonsense should be prominently displayed in our courtrooms.

[Godric]

Maybe we should have a contest as to what other historical legal nonsense should be prominently displayed in our courtrooms.

Lol

[Shyster]

Are you disputing the fact that, historically speaking, the Ten Commandments were a source of law, and have contributed to the development of the common-law tradition?

For example, the SCOTUS courtroom in D.C. has a mural running around the top of the room that depicts historical "lawgivers" and shows Menes, Hammurabi, Moses, Solomon, Lycurgus, Solon, Draco, Confucius, Augustus, Justinian, Muhammad, Charlemagne, John of England, Louis IX of France, Hugo Grotius, Sir William Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon. And yes, the Moses depiction shows him holding the Ten Commandments (although some of them are covered up by his beard).

[Godric]

I just always hold up my wrist and show my tattoo whenever people want to go all ID vs Science on me. I rarely talk existentially anymore.. to anyone in person. Makes me home sick for my homies in the burgh.

my tat

[Godric]

of the several times I showed it to people in the context of that discussion... Only 2 people knew what it was... I love those people

[redwill]

Are you disputing the fact that, historically speaking, the Ten Commandments were a source of law, and have contributed to the development of the common-law tradition?

I certainly am not disputing that.

Medieval anti-Jew codes did as well. Post-Civil War black codes did as well. Contemporary Sharia law does as well.

I'm a bit surprised that as an intelligent person and an invested United States citizen you would possibly condone proudly displaying crap that is so completely antithetical to the entire purpose -- not to mention the exact wording -- of the United States Constitution.

[Grunthy]

What happened to the days were people weren't offended by everything and just didn't pay attention to things they didn't believe? I miss those days...

[Shyster]

Are you disputing the fact that, historically speaking, the Ten Commandments were a source of law, and have contributed to the development of the common-law tradition?

I certainly am not disputing that.

Medieval anti-Jew codes did as well. Post-Civil War black codes did as well. Contemporary Sharia law does as well.

I'm a bit surprised that as an intelligent person and an invested United States citizen you would possibly condone proudly displaying crap that is so completely antithetical to the entire purpose -- not to mention the exact wording -- of the United States Constitution.

With respect, I believe you are providing a demonstration of precisely why I said I above that I would rather hang around religious persons that around evangelical atheists. You are dismissing the Ten Commandments as “crap.” You may not care for the religious basis of those commandments, but they have made a fundamental contribution to the worldwide history and development of law and morality. In addition, your reference to me being an “intelligent person” carries the clear implication that someone who is in favor of the Ten Commandments and the message they carry (or at least takes no offense at their display) cannot be “intelligent.”

I detest evangelical atheists because in my experience if I disagree with a religious person, they are most likely to be disappointed in my decision not to accept the Good News, but won’t insult me, and they may even express that they hope I accept God in the future (not likely to happen, but I don’t take umbrage at the sentiment). They might even (gasp!) tell me they’ll pray for me. On the other hand, I have found that disagreeing with an evangelical atheist is likely to lead insults to my intelligence and being called things along the like of unreasonable, superstitious, stupid, uneducated, etc. If you don’t agree with them, then you’re an unenlightened drooling moron.

Also, I swear, atheists must be some of the most sensitive people in existence. Given how often they seem to take offense, many of them must need to carry around fainting couches.

My mental impression of an atheist viewing the Ten Commandments:

[youtube][/youtube]

[redwill]

With respect, I believe you are providing a demonstration of precisely why I said I above that I would rather hang around religious persons that around evangelical atheists. You are dismissing the Ten Commandments as “crap.” You may not care for the religious basis of those commandments, but they have made a fundamental contribution to the worldwide history and development of law and morality. In addition, your reference to me being an “intelligent person” carries the clear implication that someone who is in favor of the Ten Commandments and the message they carry (or at least takes no offense at their display) cannot be “intelligent.”

I detest evangelical atheists because in my experience if I disagree with a religious person, they are most likely to be disappointed in my decision not to accept the Good News, but won’t insult me, and they may even express that they hope I accept God in the future (not likely to happen, but I don’t take umbrage at the sentiment). They might even (gasp!) tell me they’ll pray for me. On the other hand, I have found that disagreeing with an evangelical atheist is likely to lead insults to my intelligence and being called things along the like of unreasonable, superstitious, stupid, uneducated, etc. If you don’t agree with them, then you’re an unenlightened drooling moron.

Also, I swear, atheists must be some of the most sensitive people in existence. Given how often they seem to take offense, many of them must need to carry around fainting couches.

I get it that you don't like uppity atheists. Do you have any comment about what I said?

I certainly am not disputing that.

Medieval anti-Jew codes did as well. Post-Civil War black codes did as well. Contemporary Sharia law does as well.

I'm a bit surprised that as an intelligent person and an invested United States citizen you would possibly condone proudly displaying crap that is so completely antithetical to the entire purpose -- not to mention the exact wording -- of the United States Constitution.

[Grunthy]

With respect, I believe you are providing a demonstration of precisely why I said I above that I would rather hang around religious persons that around evangelical atheists. You are dismissing the Ten Commandments as “crap.” You may not care for the religious basis of those commandments, but they have made a fundamental contribution to the worldwide history and development of law and morality. In addition, your reference to me being an “intelligent person” carries the clear implication that someone who is in favor of the Ten Commandments and the message they carry (or at least takes no offense at their display) cannot be “intelligent.”

I detest evangelical atheists because in my experience if I disagree with a religious person, they are most likely to be disappointed in my decision not to accept the Good News, but won’t insult me, and they may even express that they hope I accept God in the future (not likely to happen, but I don’t take umbrage at the sentiment). They might even (gasp!) tell me they’ll pray for me. On the other hand, I have found that disagreeing with an evangelical atheist is likely to lead insults to my intelligence and being called things along the like of unreasonable, superstitious, stupid, uneducated, etc. If you don’t agree with them, then you’re an unenlightened drooling moron.

Also, I swear, atheists must be some of the most sensitive people in existence. Given how often they seem to take offense, many of them must need to carry around fainting couches.

I get it that you don't like uppity atheists. Do you have any comment about what I said?

I certainly am not disputing that.

Medieval anti-Jew codes did as well. Post-Civil War black codes did as well. Contemporary Sharia law does as well.

I'm a bit surprised that as an intelligent person and an invested United States citizen you would possibly condone proudly displaying crap that is so completely antithetical to the entire purpose -- not to mention the exact wording -- of the United States Constitution.

You mean the document that was created using Natural law, a god-centered world view?

[redwill]

You mean the document that was created using Natural law, a god-centered world view?

I hope you don't mean the US Constitution.

[Grunthy]

You mean the document that was created using Natural law, a god-centered world view?

I hope you don't mean the US Constitution.

Yes the constitution is based off of natural laws. I know its hard to believe, that a document that states about rights and laws that are universal could be about natural laws. It just sounds preposterous.

[redwill]

Yes the constitution is based off of natural laws. I know its hard to believe, that a document that states about rights and laws that are universal could be about natural laws. It just sounds preposterous.

Ah, I see. You are mistakenly equating Enlightenment ideas with Scholastic Natural Law and then extending that mistake to say that God is behind it. Lord have mercy.

[Grunthy]

Yes the constitution is based off of natural laws. I know its hard to believe, that a document that states about rights and laws that are universal could be about natural laws. It just sounds preposterous.

Ah, I see. You are mistakenly equating Enlightenment ideas with Scholastic Natural Law and then extending that mistake to say that God is behind it. Lord have mercy.

Lord have mercy on you my good sir. Actually I cannot even say good sir to to you because you try to insult everyone's intelligence. You just a an arrogant *******. I leave you with this.

In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the United States Supreme Court stated:
The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

So if you believe in Declarationism, then the constitution was built upon the declaration.

[redwill]

OK.

[Grunthy]

Uh .... OK.

It is called declarationism.

[redwill]

Uh .... OK.

It is called declarationism.

Uh .... OK.

[Grunthy]

It is surprising that someone of your "intellect," as you kindly pointed out to some of us, didn't know about it.

[redwill]

It is surprising that someone of your "intellect," as you kindly pointed out to some of us, didn't know about it.

I never claimed any special amount of intellect. I stated that I believe that Shyster is intelligent.

I must admit defeat, however, since whatever it is you are trying to say is apparently supported by a 1901 Supreme Court decision.

[Rylan]

Calm down guys, no point in becoming irate about any of this.