EU is becoming anti-christian in politics

[Whaleboy]

Possibly something to do with the trend that rights for women and minorities seem to increase in proportion with the distance between church and state.

[Ben Kenobi]

I, for one, believe that a person can made sound ethical choices without religion.

You say that upbringing determines whether a person makes moral decisions, but if this is so, how can we have any form of personal responsibility? Upbringing may influence the moral decisions, but it does not determine them. Two children raised in the same way, can grow up very differently depending on the choices that they make.

Secondly, you say that you make sound ethical choices without religion. Upon what basis do you determine a decision is moral? If it is upon the input of others, then you are just replacing one source of influence with another. Who's to say that the people you are relying upon are not under the influence of the church?

Finally, if you base your moral decisions upon your conscience, where does your conscience come from?

[Ben Kenobi]

Possibly something to do with the trend that rights for women and minorities seem to increase in proportion with the distance between church and state.

I suppose that's why France has fewer protections for the non-French because they are much closer geographically to the centre of the church, then say Canada or even the US.

[Whaleboy]

But the French have the church of atheism ... but then I did say trend which in the strict sense would take France as an exception... however....

By atheism, I mean religiously or morally, theistically etc neutral in government... the French are pedelling atheism above others... including banning religious items from schools etc which I'm opposed to. There's a difference between draining a lake of muddy water and keeping the dry lake bed... and filling the lake instead with fresh water, where one drowns regardless.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You say that upbringing determines whether a person makes moral decisions, but if this is so, how can we have any form of personal responsibility?

Liberty and necessity (free will and determinism) are not inconsistent. That the sort of person you are was determined by your upgrading doesn't excuse your decisions.

Secondly, you say that you make sound ethical choices without religion. Upon what basis do you determine a decision is moral? If it is upon the input of others, then you are just replacing one source of influence with another. Who's to say that the people you are relying upon are not under the influence of the church?

You've never really managed to give a good reason why it is "right" to do what god says.

Finally, if you base your moral decisions upon your conscience, where does your conscience come from?

It's in my brain.

[Ben Kenobi]

which in the strict sense would take France as an exception...

PWND!

[Ben Kenobi]

Liberty and necessity (free will and determinism) are not inconsistent. That the sort of person you are was determined by your upgrading doesn't excuse your decisions.

Sure it does. Look at the punishments given the couple that locked their children in cages and forced them to drink their own urine. The courts here gave them less time because of their supposed abuse as children.

Free will and determinism are diametrically opposed.

You've never really managed to give a good reason why it is "right" to do what god says.

If he made us, it makes sense to follow hiis instructions.

It's in my brain.

Okay. Did you make your brain?

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


PWND!

Hardly, read my post... and you fail to address what I have said on a necessary basis.... instead you seem intent on finding contrary examples .

[Whaleboy]

Okay. Did you make your brain?

Daily Heidegger/Husserl plug

[Ben Kenobi]

and you fail to address what I have said on a necessary basis.... instead you seem intent on finding contrary examples

I think you need to think out your argument again. It's pretty bad, if it can't make sense of France of all things.

It's not like I'm digging up obscure cases.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure it does. Look at the punishments given the couple that locked their children in cages and forced them to drink their own urine. The courts here gave them less time because of their supposed abuse as children.

Free will and determinism are diametrically opposed.

Then you have a narrow, impossible, and internally inconsistent view of free will.

Your thoughts are determined by the structure of your mind. Your mind is the thing that makes your thoughts. It obeys certain rules in thinking. This is inherent in the nature of action - any action is determined by natural laws. It just is. It's nonsense to say that an action (of anything) wasn't determined by natural laws, because there is nothing else that could have determined it - and SOMETHING had to figure out what was going to happen next. This doesn't change the fact that it is YOUR MIND that does the thinking, and therefore, YOU are responsible for your actions.

If he made us, it makes sense to follow hiis instructions.

1) no it doesn't

2) that doesn't establish morality

Okay. Did you make your brain?

No.

It doesn't matter. The very act of choice implies a mind, therefore, one CANNOT CHOOSE one's own mind. It doesn't matter, because it's YOUR MIND that made the choice. Free will is the ability to make your own decisions. You quite clearly have that ability, therefore you have free will.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker




Which is of course why there were people who espoused such things in pagan Greece and Rome.

Yeah, sure. We saw a complete collapse of inequality of man in ancient Rome; and of course, the Roman Emperor was the leader in abolishing titles and privileges in the upper classes. It was he who freed the slaves and ended the gladiator contests and executions for sport in the arenas.

Get real.

[Whaleboy]

I think you need to think out your argument again. It's pretty bad, if it can't make sense of France of all things.

The closer the church (internally consistent (relatively speaking) institutionalised dogma) is to the state, the more prescriptive government becomes, the few rights women and minorities, particular the bane of the Church at the given time, be it Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Witches, Homosexuals, get it in the neck. In France's case, it occurs when that institutionalised dogma is atheism, but the same logic holds. So try again .

It was he who freed the slaves and ended the gladiator contests and executions for sport in the arenas

So the Roman emperors were a force for equality and righteousness now? . Name me the Roman emperor that freed the slaves? Abraham Lincoln?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


So the Roman emperors were a force for equality and righteousness now? . Name me the Roman emperor that freed the slaves? Abraham Lincoln?

Whaleboy, what I said was mocking what Kuci said. He said that Marcus Aurelius was a humanist. True, he was a stoic. But to somehow believe that he saw all men as equals and actually did something about it is just a bit too much to take. The entire Roman system was based on legal classes that survived largely unchanged through the middle ages and into modern times.

[Fake Boris]

Whaleboy, since you wet your toe in this thread, I'd be curious to know your opinion about my quarrel with Kucidude, if you care to read it.

Kucidude, I might care for an answer later, it depends on how I feel. You're definitely being a bore, though, much more so than usual. You can be a lot better than this.