The why can't aetheist do what the fuck they like thread

[hedonis]

I will get back to you about Thomas, but not right now, I'll need to be fully sober first

And this, my friends, is the reason for this thread.

a quick disclaimer!

I Am NOT Advocating Atheists To Kill!!!

I'm asking whether laws based on religion, should apply to atheists?
(although this does obviously inevitably include murder by default) ​

But they originate from religion, regardless of how they are now applied.

Dispite England does not enforce belief, and is tolerant towards other faiths, I still consider England to be a Christian country as it's history and it's society's foundation is so. I would probably have the same opinion about the US.

But if society's laws are drawn from religion, why should an atheist have to conform to them?

Where does this empathy for others come from?

The ancient origin of the law does not matter, no matter how much alcohol-induced philosophy you try to infuse into it. It is in the local, state, or federal law, and as such, you're expected as a citizen of a country/state/provice/locality to abide by those laws, none of which are designed or written to clamp down on your belief in nothing.

They are designed to keep people from doing things that endanger, annoy, alarm, or otherwise disturb others. Just because you don't believe in the ten commandments doesn't mean you get to steal things. Laws are written to prevent you from stealing things because, it's common sense that if it ain't yours, you can't have it.

And as proof that the ten commandments aren't really the basis for much law, tell me the last time someone went to prison for coveting their neighbor's wife, or failure to honor thy mother and father.

Try study instead of alcohol next time. :hatsoff:

 

[sporty_carr]

This is what I've gathered from the little bit I've read of this thread:


[on] Does asking questions all the time start to annoy all the other members after awhile?

[member 1] Well, probably not all of them...but maybe some.

[on] Why not all of them? Why just some?

[member 2] Because people think differently. Some are more tolerant than others.

[on] But why are some more tolerant? Should tolerance be a choice or should it be enforced by law?

[member 1] Why would tolerance be enforced by law? What are you...some kind Nazi?

[on] No, I'm not saying that I'm a Nazi. But really, what is a Nazi? Are we all really Nazis at heart?

[member 2] ............................

 

[on]

And this, my friends, is the reason for this thread.

The ancient origin of the law does not matter, no matter how much alcohol-induced philosophy you try to infuse into it. It is in the local, state, or federal law, and as such, you're expected as a citizen of a country/state/provice/locality to abide by those laws, none of which are designed or written to clamp down on your belief in nothing.

They are designed to keep people from doing things that endanger, annoy, alarm, or otherwise disturb others. Just because you don't believe in the ten commandments doesn't mean you get to steal things. Laws are written to prevent you from stealing things because, it's common sense that if it ain't yours, you can't have it.

And as proof that the ten commandments aren't really the basis for much law, tell me the last time someone went to prison for coveting their neighbor's wife, or failure to honor thy mother and father.

Try study instead of alcohol next time. :hatsoff:

You shouldn't be so pressumptuous, as I don't drink alcohol during the week. Anyway, all the alcohol related stuff, I swipe, so on to the points you made!

You talk about having to comply to the laws of a country/state/provice/locality, regardless of where they came from. You said "none of which are designed or written to clamp down on your belief in nothing". What if this law does infringe on what you consider to be a religious requirement? What should happen in this case? should the law be ammended? If not, then is it not the case that the law, in your words does "clamp down on your belief".

I argue that the origin of the law does matter. The relevance of origin is all important when considering why law is in place, and what it is in place for. I completely agree that all ten commandments aren't followed today in law, especially in America, where they still kill people as punishment.

So, regarding coveting thy neighbours wife: you probably understand what the commandment says, and I assume you understand it, work some google magic if you don't, because coveting your neighbours wife, or his donkey, his PS3, or patio heater, whatever? is basically in your mind. Now we haven't got the technology yet to punish people for their thoughts, so I'll concede that this commandment 'thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife' is currently not enforced, although get caught looking, and your neighbour will know what's on!

So, failure to honor thy mother and father; this is a commandment that relates to family, and therefore is should be dealt with by family, however if it gets out of hand and it can no longer be dealt with by family, then there is law in place for the government to deal with that child, whether it's adoption or whatever. Anyway, I'm not going to argue that this commandment is in place as law as it is not.

Here's the bottom line, just because all of the ten commandments are enforced as the ten commandments, doesn't mean laws do not come from them! Even if nine of them weren't represented in any form in a country's law, if single one of them was, that single law would still derive from a religious context. The fact that the other nine weren't enforced as law makes no difference! That single law would still have derived from the ten commandments.

 

[sporty_carr]

Here's the bottom line, just because all of the ten commandments are enforced as the ten commandments, doesn't mean laws do not come from them! Even if nine of them weren't represented in any form in a country's law, if single one of them was, that single law would still derive from a religious context. The fact that the other nine weren't enforced as law makes no difference! That single law would still have derived from the ten commandments.

I agree with this.

 

[on]

This is what I've gathered from the little bit I've read of this thread:


[on] Does asking questions all the time start to annoy all the other members after awhile?

[member 1] Well, probably not all of them...but maybe some.

[on] Why not all of them? Why just some?

[member 2] Because people think differently. Some are more tolerant than others.

[on] But why are some more tolerant? Should tolerance be a choice or should it be enforced by law?

[member 1] Why would tolerance be enforced by law? What are you...some kind Nazi?

[on] No, I'm not saying that I'm a Nazi. But really, what is a Nazi? Are we all really Nazis at heart?

[member 2] ............................

Do you think you put enough effort in to that?

 

[mrtrebus]

You shouldn't be so pressumptuous, as I don't drink alcohol during the week. Anyway, all the alcohol related stuff, I swipe, so on to the points you made!

You talk about having to comply to the laws of a country/state/provice/locality, regardless of where they came from. You said "none of which are designed or written to clamp down on your belief in nothing". What if this law does infringe on what you consider to be a religious requirement? What should happen in this case? should the law be ammended? If not, then is it not the case that the law, in your words does "clamp down on your belief".

I argue that the origin of the law does matter. The relevance of origin is all important when considering why law is in place, and what it is in place for. I completely agree that all ten commandments aren't followed today in law, especially in America, where they still kill people as punishment.

So, regarding coveting thy neighbours wife: you probably understand what the commandment says, and I assume you understand it, work some google magic if you don't, because coveting your neighbours wife, or his donkey, his PS3, or patio heater, whatever? is basically in your mind. Now we haven't got the technology yet to punish people for their thoughts, so I'll concede that this commandment 'thou shall not covet thy neighbour's wife' is currently not enforced, although get caught looking, and your neighbour will know what's on!

So, failure to honor thy mother and father; this is a commandment that relates to family, and therefore is should be dealt with by family, however if it gets out of hand and it can no longer be dealt with by family, then there is law in place for the government to deal with that child, whether it's adoption or whatever. Anyway, I'm not going to argue that this commandment is in place as law as it is not.

Here's the bottom line, just because all of the ten commandments are enforced as the ten commandments, doesn't mean laws do not come from them! Even if nine of them weren't represented in any form in a country's law, if single one of them was, that single law would still derive from a religious context. The fact that the other nine weren't enforced as law makes no difference! That single law would still have derived from the ten commandments.

Which were invented by man, not some silly creature in the sky!

 

[on]

Which were invented by man, not some silly creature in the sky!

one persons silly creature is another persons god. To prove, or to disprove it's existance is unfortunately besides the point at the moment, especially when solely based on opinion.

Example:

Atheist: "god does not exist"

Religious person: "yes he does"

Atheist: "no he doesn't"

Religious person: "yes he does"


repeat several times!

 

[Cpt.Obvious]

Religious: Its God's will.
Atheist: There is no God, but should there be a God, it's me.
Spiritualist: Yes, Exactly!

As a spiritualist, It does not matter where the laws come from, they are tailored to fit a society where people are allowed to dis agree.
and the laws are suppose to be for those people who can not or wont , play well with others.
To those people who are content with there own selves and beliefs the laws should not be a necessity.
But since nothing is fool proof and Humans are ingenious fools, the laws become the strong arm for the powerful.

 

[mrtrebus]

In response to this part: If empathy was natural, and we are all born. Why do different cultures across the world vary so greatly in what you might call morality or empathy for each other?

Why do some tribes in one part of the world eat each other (until someone told them a few years ago it wasn't such a good idea), and some tribes carry out human sacrifices, plus all sorts of other shee-it?

If empathy was a natural thing that we all posess when we are born (minus the odd psychopath), why is it that some people from one culture seemingly have more empathy for human life than another culture?

You said they vary or have more empathy than another culture. You didn't say they do not posses any empathy at all, so this is not a valid argument against the empathy is natural notion.

one persons silly creature is another persons god. To prove, or to disprove it's existance is unfortunately besides the point at the moment, especially when solely based on opinion.

But its not beside the point is it, because you asked whether "these laws. . .completely undermine an aetheists choice not to believe?" They clearly do not. Not at all because we don't see these laws as being created by some divine being.
:hatsoff:

 

[on]

You said they vary or have more empathy than another culture. You didn't say they do not posses any empathy at all, so this is not a valid argument against the empathy is natural notion.

You didn't mention that a camels arsehole doesn't taste like cadbury cream egg, so based on the fact that you haven't ruled it out, does that mean it tastes like cadbury cream egg?

Anyway, on this empathy point, you haven't answered my question yet!
http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=4375323&postcount=41

But its not beside the point is it, because you asked whether "these laws. . .completely undermine an aetheists choice not to believe?" They clearly do not. Not at all because we don't see these laws as being created by some divine being.
:hatsoff:

Ok, now were getting somewhere, why didn't you say something like that before?

Just to get straight on something, you do not believe in religion right? but you agree that religion exists (whether you believe or not)?

Do you not think that laws can be drawn from a religion, even though you do not believe in it?

 

[freeryan]

Like christmas, taking credit for a law doesn't make it religious. I don't need a religion to tell me to not kill, I have common sense and the golden rule is enough for me. When slavery and killing gays, cheating wives and disobediant kids is allowed by religious law, I'd say it's a damn good thing they took out those laws, saw what makes sense and is beneficial for society and went with the laws against killing stealing and other obvious things.

 

[roronoa3000]

Athiests can go to Hell!!!
:rofl: