25 of 26
25
Should theistic fact claims be subjected to the same standards of scrutiny as other fact claims?
Posted: 09 September 2013 03:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 361 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
LilySmith - 09 September 2013 02:05 PM
StephenLawrence - 09 September 2013 08:55 AM

Well then we could not do or believe otherwise without being someone else.

And since we didnt make ourselves and God did, he is responsible.

And to directly answer the question who we are is the circumstances.

God, however, reveals that man has his own spiritual will in this matter—he can obey God or turn against him.  The circumstance of man’s spiritual creation is that he is free to reject God, so man’s resulting nature is his responsibility.


Or we could take the position that no god exists because none has ever been shown to exist and that everything in the bible is the ravings of men who didn’t know the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth, and there was no spiritual creation.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 03:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 362 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
LilySmith - 09 September 2013 02:30 PM
DarronS - 09 September 2013 02:11 PM

Do you believe only the SC can overturn unconstitutional laws?

If the majority of people in the US support gay marriage, that should be reflected in the laws of the states where marriage is now defined.  If the majority of people support it, let the people speak on the issue.  If the Supreme Court has to contort the US Constitution to say a right to gay marriage exists, I think it becomes suspect.  If people want gay marriage to be a constitutional right, they should seek to amend the constitution and let the will of the people be heard that way as they did with slavery.  “The 13th amendment, which formally abolished slavery in the United States, passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, and the House on January 31, 1865. On February 1, 1865, President Abraham Lincoln approved the Joint Resolution of Congress submitting the proposed amendment to the state legislatures. The necessary number of states ratified it by December 6, 1865.”

Of course the Supreme Court can interpret law and judge it to be constitutional or not.  But an issue like the definition of marriage is simply not a clear cut constitutional issue on the federal level.  Everyone can get married if they meet the laws as defined by the states.  No one is discriminated against in that way.  Gay marriage, however, is a new definition of marriage.  The people, not the courts, should make that change in my view.


Gosh Lily, too bad you weren’t around when the Constitution was written. Not that you would have had any influence, seeing the Founding Fathers didn’t think women should have the vote or the ability to hold office. It took a Constitutional Amendment to get women those two basic rights. After that women obtained other rights, such as the right to own property, to pass property onto their heirs, to divorce, obtain higher education and sit in board rooms, after enormous political struggles.  Seems like you think they should have stayed quiet and never had their rights because the Constitution didn’t give them any.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 04:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 363 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
Lois - 09 September 2013 03:42 PM

Gosh Lily, too bad you weren’t around when the Constitution was written. Not that you would have had any influence, seeing the Founding Fathers didn’t think women should have the vote or the ability to hold office. It took a Constitutional Amendment to get women those two basic rights. After that women obtained other rights, such as the right to own property, to pass property onto their heirs, to divorce, obtain higher education and sit in board rooms, after enormous political struggles.  Seems like you think they should have stayed quiet and never had their rights because the Constitution didn’t give them any.

Lois

Yes, it took a Constitutional Amendment for women to obtain their rights.  The majority of men in the Congress and the majority of men in the state legislators voted that amendment into law.  It was the will of the people and it became law through the legislative process.  It wasn’t a lone judge who decided to overrule the people in order to put a law into effect outside the legislative process.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 04:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 364 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
Thevillageatheist - 09 September 2013 02:53 PM

Although they do at times bend to public pressure, the task of a judge is to uphold the laws based on the Constitution as it protects the rights of individuals i.e. to protect the people from the tyranny of popular opinion just as it will when the religious become the minority. Their right to practice whatever religion they choose is inviolate here as it has been since the Constitution was written. We both, xtian and atheist receive the same protection as guaranteed under the first amendment and I have no problem living under those protections so long as a balance is maintained. That’s why we appoint judges in the first place. Their expertise in the field of law and their position gives them the leeway to steer legislation benefitting the society at large and to protect individual freedoms. So, in rebuttal to your statement concerning the judges becoming more powerful than the popular vote, they already are by virtue of the positions they hold. If you want to see that power exercised go visit a courtroom in session and see the power for yourself.

The role of the judge is to interpret law, it is not to “steer legislation benefiting the society.”  The law, including the Constitution, protects individual freedoms, not the judges.  Judges are not to make law, that’s the purview of legislators who are voted for by the people.  We live in a Representative Democracy, not a tyranny by judges.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 04:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 365 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6160
Joined  2009-02-26
LilySmith - 09 September 2013 04:17 PM
Lois - 09 September 2013 03:42 PM

Gosh Lily, too bad you weren’t around when the Constitution was written. Not that you would have had any influence, seeing the Founding Fathers didn’t think women should have the vote or the ability to hold office. It took a Constitutional Amendment to get women those two basic rights. After that women obtained other rights, such as the right to own property, to pass property onto their heirs, to divorce, obtain higher education and sit in board rooms, after enormous political struggles.  Seems like you think they should have stayed quiet and never had their rights because the Constitution didn’t give them any.

Lois

Yes, it took a Constitutional Amendment for women to obtain their rights.  The majority of men in the Congress and the majority of men in the state legislators voted that amendment into law.  It was the will of the people and it became law through the legislative process.  It wasn’t a lone judge who decided to overrule the people in order to put a law into effect outside the legislative process.

thinking: “why was a Constitutional Amendment necessary?  Because the Constitution is amendable (unlike the bible) and the States were treating segments of the population unfairly, in accordance with the bible”... zipper

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 04:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 366 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
Lois - 09 September 2013 03:30 PM

Does the majority of the US have any say on slavery? Other people’s rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, freedom of religion? The bill of rights was made part of the Constitution so it could not be overturned by majority vote. If it could be overturned by majority vote you would probably find yourself having lost many of your rights. Watch out what you wish for.

Anything in the Constitution can be amended by a super majority vote in Congress AND an approval by a super majority of the state legislatures.  The exception, I believe, is the number of members in the Senate.  The American people have the power to live by any law they determine if they can clear that hurdle.  The Equal Rights Amendment never did become law.  “The ERA was originally written by Alice Paul and, in 1923, it was introduced in the Congress for the first time. In 1972, it passed both houses of Congress and went to the state legislatures for ratification. The ERA failed to receive the requisite number of ratifications (38) before the final deadline mandated by Congress of June 30, 1982, and so it was not adopted.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 04:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 367 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  296
Joined  2013-07-25
Write4U - 09 September 2013 04:23 PM

thinking: “why was a Constitutional Amendment necessary?  Because the Constitution is amendable (unlike the bible) and the States were treating segments of the population unfairly, in accordance with the bible”... zipper

So now you do think US law is based on the Bible?  You guys need to make up your minds.

The Bible does treat people all the same.  There is no division by race in the Bible, and although women have different roles in society and church, they are equal to men in their position in Christ.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 04:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 368 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
LilySmith - 09 September 2013 04:17 PM
Lois - 09 September 2013 03:42 PM

Gosh Lily, too bad you weren’t around when the Constitution was written. Not that you would have had any influence, seeing the Founding Fathers didn’t think women should have the vote or the ability to hold office. It took a Constitutional Amendment to get women those two basic rights. After that women obtained other rights, such as the right to own property, to pass property onto their heirs, to divorce, obtain higher education and sit in board rooms, after enormous political struggles.  Seems like you think they should have stayed quiet and never had their rights because the Constitution didn’t give them any.

Lois

Yes, it took a Constitutional Amendment for women to obtain their rights.  The majority of men in the Congress and the majority of men in the state legislators voted that amendment into law.  It was the will of the people and it became law through the legislative process.  It wasn’t a lone judge who decided to overrule the people in order to put a law into effect outside the legislative process.

It took a Constitutional amendment—very difficult to get passed. It ran into a tremendous amount of opposition. If it hadn’t been for WWI, which left a lot of male voters unable to vote it probably wouldn’t have passed. It was not a matter of “the will of the people”. The electorate was 100% male and most of them wanted to keep the status quo. No woman could vote on it.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 04:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 369 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
LilySmith - 09 September 2013 04:38 PM
Write4U - 09 September 2013 04:23 PM

thinking: “why was a Constitutional Amendment necessary?  Because the Constitution is amendable (unlike the bible) and the States were treating segments of the population unfairly, in accordance with the bible”... zipper

So now you do think US law is based on the Bible?  You guys need to make up your minds.

The Bible does treat people all the same.  There is no division by race in the Bible, and although women have different roles in society and church, they are equal to men in their position in Christ.

But not on earth.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 05:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 370 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1474
Joined  2009-10-21
LilySmith - 09 September 2013 04:38 PM
Write4U - 09 September 2013 04:23 PM

thinking: “why was a Constitutional Amendment necessary?  Because the Constitution is amendable (unlike the bible) and the States were treating segments of the population unfairly, in accordance with the bible”... zipper

So now you do think US law is based on the Bible?  You guys need to make up your minds.

No, we don’t think that. At least I don’t. But we do know that people were influenced by the Bible. But that was 250 years ago. We’ve discovered dinosaurs since then and found out the universe is a lot older than we thought. So we think differently about things now. You should try it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 371 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

This topic page but not its topic has drawn considerable attention. In following it, I’ve gained a better understanding why so many rationalists are inclined to engage with people like Ms. Smith. Like the scientist who seeks a cure for cancer, we need to understand its genesis to eradicate it. So we try to understand the contours and inner workings of the mind of a LilySmith. That is not to say that she is a cancer but her mode of “thinking” and presentation surely is.

I put her on ignore a couple days ago, and announced the fact. Of course, I still see her posts if I view this topic, or if someone else nests them in their comments. So I will continue to comment on them to the extent that I think those comments may add to our discussion. I will not continue to try to engage her in content because she has demonstrated, through an unwavering pattern of misbehavior, that such is impossible.

Having noticed that I am referring to her in third person, she now resorts in post 348 to baiting (Please put me back on your ignore list.) and projection (talking to someone like you is futile). My first inclination was the self-advice “don’t take the bait” but then I realized that I had something to say that might add to our discussion. I don’t enjoy saying that anyone is being dishonest but with her, honesty demands it, to such an extent that I’ve dropped the qualifier “intellectual” from “dishonesty,” and now observe that she does it so consistently that she is not only being dishonest; she has turned herself into a dishonest person.

Of course, Ms. Smith, I can also choose to address you directly. I became a born-again Humanist on the evening of January 16, 1997, when a revelation came to me (through interaction with others and reasoned thought) that Faith is creative and useful mainly as an action, not a belief. Everyone who is born again does it in a unique way, depending on what is blocking us. If someone has enough blocks, he or she can be spiritually reborn many times. My pivotal block was approaching life negatively, not seeing all that life had to offer. When I came to understand what Faith can be, that block disappeared, and my life was changed.

Your block, Lily – the one I can see, at any rate – is a lack of objectivity. You too can change your life but to do that you will have to do two things. First, if you wish to be a truth-seeker and a disciple of truth, you must stop treating reality as a function of what you believe; you must reverse the order. Second, you must be constantly mindful that you can be wrong, about pretty much anything. Good luck.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 07:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 372 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3254
Joined  2011-08-15

Thevillageatheist - 09 September 2013 02:53 PM
Although they do at times bend to public pressure, the task of a judge is to uphold the laws based on the Constitution as it protects the rights of individuals i.e. to protect the people from the tyranny of popular opinion just as it will when the religious become the minority. Their right to practice whatever religion they choose is inviolate here as it has been since the Constitution was written. We both, xtian and atheist receive the same protection as guaranteed under the first amendment and I have no problem living under those protections so long as a balance is maintained. That’s why we appoint judges in the first place. Their expertise in the field of law and their position gives them the leeway to steer legislation benefitting the society at large and to protect individual freedoms. So, in rebuttal to your statement concerning the judges becoming more powerful than the popular vote, they already are by virtue of the positions they hold. If you want to see that power exercised go visit a courtroom in session and see the power for yourself.

The role of the judge is to interpret law, it is not to “steer legislation benefiting the society.”  The law, including the Constitution, protects individual freedoms, not the judges.  Judges are not to make law, that’s the purview of legislators who are voted for by the people.  We live in a Representative Democracy, not a tyranny by judges.


Read my post again Lilly before you make a snap judgement and interject your own interpretation of my meaning. As you say, the role of the judge is to interpret the law, which is exactly what I posted i.e. “the task of a judge is to uphold the laws based on the Constitution”. Laws may be added by a duly elected Congress or by a convention of states; the power derived from Article V. So, it is the people who ultimately decide what should be added, not the judges whose power you seem to fear. This is the typical strawman argument used by the conservatives in an attempt to derail the third branch. The SC with rare exception is only a court of appeals and has no power to “steer” legislation in any direction, e.g. The infamous case of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia where Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in favor of the Cherokees but then President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the ruling. This was a violation of the power of the SC but Jackson, moved by the sentiment of the people thumbed his nose at the SC. So, you’re right about one thing, we do live in a representative democracy and even the SC isn’t all that powerful, hence checks and balances. But the ongoing argument concerning a state’s power to enforce an already unpopular law like prop 8 or the whole of DOMA will be decided by the SC and not a local district judge so don’t worry about the judicial branch stripping you of your right to protest that same sex marriage is an abomination to your god.


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 07:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 373 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1474
Joined  2009-10-21
LilySmith - 09 September 2013 02:34 PM

It goes to the author’s credibility, and I think his first quote was as ignorant as his second.  You haven’t “confirmed” anything.  It’s still just your opinion.  The reality is your logic is mostly use to confirm what you already want to believe and nothing more.

A credibility test that works only for you. And it’s not just my opinion. Some of his ideas, as well as other philosophers, are enshrined in the US Constitution that you are so vehemently defending. So putting those principles into action has been “confirmed”. I don’t deny that I believe what I do in part because of what I was taught. That’s true for everyone. So, yes, I want to believe that I can have reasonable discussions with my fellow humans, trust them to provide me with accurate information and work together with them to build a better world. If I do that and I meet St. Peter at the gate and he says, “Well, you led a just and noble life, but you didn’t praise the Lord enough, so go to hell”, then that God is not worth praising.

I’m banking on either there is no God, so leading a good life is it’s own reward, or God doesn’t care about denominations or Deuteronomy or arbitrary rules about exactly how to accept his grace. The Wesleyan tradition of grace is that it is freely given even though we don’t deserve it, and having received it, all we can do is live the law of love as best we can and forgive each other when we don’t. Nothing you have said is any better than that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 07:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 374 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

For nearly two centuries after our country’s founding, nearly all of America participated in the twin travesties of slavery and genocide. In the 1950s and 1960s, the United States Supreme Court finally began to take our founding principles seriously. No surprise, hypocrisy has struck back, with a vengeance.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 September 2013 09:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 375 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6192
Joined  2006-12-20
LilySmith - 09 September 2013 02:05 PM

God, however, reveals that man has his own spiritual will in this matter—he can obey God or turn against him.  The circumstance of man’s spiritual creation is that he is free to reject God, so man’s resulting nature is his responsibility.

To make a different choice man’s spirit will would have to be different. It’s impossible for man to be responsible for whether it’s one way or another.

Since God gave it to him God is responsible.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
   
25 of 26
25