Do The People Have The Moral Authority To Outlaw Atheism?

100% irrelevant to the OP.
The OP is not concerned with Pragmatism
The OP is not concerned with the "bad results" of outlawing anything.
The OP does NOT call for outlawing anything.
The OP and does NOT want to outlaw anything.

The OP asks for your answers to the following:

What Higher Power or Higher Authority is there above The People?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

What Truth Reality exists that has more Power and Authority than The People Of Earth?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

And if there is no Truth Reality above The People --- then what Higher Power is there that
can say Collective Humanity is immoral to do the following?
~ Outlaw Christianity
~ Outlaw Abortions
~ Outlaw Free Speech
~ Outlaw Liberalism
~ Permit Dueling {with pistols to settle personal issues}
~ Legalize Gladiatorial Games {fighting to the death}

What are their names?
Where are they located?

JAG


``

 

Evasion.
Misdirection.
Ignores the OP and follow-up posts.

This OP is not about your "Our hypothetical set of humans"
This OP is about "The Collective Humanity Of The Earth."

The OP is clear that it is NOT talking about "our hypothetical set of humans"
but rather is talking about the collective humanity of the Earth.

So?

So all I can do is repeat what the OP asks:

The OP asks for your answers to the following:

What Higher Power or Higher Authority is there above The People?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

What Truth Reality exists that has more Power and Authority than The People Of Earth?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

And if there is no Truth Reality above The People --- then what Higher Power is there that
can say Collective Humanity is immoral to do the following?
~ Outlaw Christianity
~ Outlaw Abortions
~ Outlaw Free Speech
~ Outlaw Liberalism
~ Permit Dueling {with pistols to settle personal issues}
~ Legalize Gladiatorial Games {fighting to the death}

What are their names?
Where are they located?

JAG


``

 

If I am wrong or misguided then you will find it easy to give me the answers
to this below:

What Higher Power or Higher Authority is there above The People?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

What Truth Reality exists that has more Power and Authority than The People Of Earth?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

And if there is no Truth Reality above The People --- then what Higher Power is there that
can say Collective Humanity is immoral to do the following?
~ Outlaw Christianity
~ Outlaw Abortions
~ Outlaw Free Speech
~ Outlaw Liberalism
~ Permit Dueling {with pistols to settle personal issues}
~ Legalize Gladiatorial Games {fighting to the death}

What are their names?
Where are they located?

JAG

 

, , lol , ,
You do realize. do you not, that this below was in the very post that you quoted:

"Both the Religious People and the alleged Non-Religious People
have killed untold millions of human beings"___JAG

Then you quoted that and then said this:

"nope, were just saying Theists can have bad evil people, like any other group"___FresgAir


JAG


``

 

You wrote that up there in response to this:

JAG Wrote:
Also , , ,
Add the fact that on Secular Humanism, Humans and Lions, Bugs, Rats,
and Cockroaches have the same ultimate destiny which is ceasing-to-exist
oblivion. So? So we can know for a fact that, that which ceases to exist no
longer has any moral worth. Nothing is not valuable. This is worth knowing.___JAG

Swensson Quoted That Up There And Then Replied With This , , ,

JAG Now replies , ,
I have agreed with all of that, and several times too.
In fact I have an OP and a thread praising atheists for their present
high worth and value.
Question For John Atheist: Don't You Want To Remember Your Good Deeds Forever?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-to-remember-your-good-deeds-forever.576683/


_______


Also don't forget this ;

JAG Wrote:
Also , , ,
Add the fact that on Secular Humanism, Humans and Lions, Bugs, Rats,
and Cockroaches have the same ultimate destiny which is ceasing-to-exist
oblivion. So? So we can know for a fact that, that which ceases to exist no
longer has any moral worth. Nothing is not valuable. This is worth knowing.___JAG

And Swensson replied

"True"___Swensson


JAG

``

 

But those weren't REAL Christians.

 

Your "six legs" thingy is 100% NOT comparable to any degree with
the moral issue in the OP.

Which is this , , ,
And if there is no Truth Reality above The People --- then what
Higher Power is there that can say Collective Humanity is immoral
to do the following?
~ Outlaw Christianity
~ Outlaw Abortions
~ Outlaw Free Speech
~ Outlaw Liberalism
~ Permit Dueling {with pistols to the death to settle personal disputes.}
~ Legalize Gladiatorial Games {fighting to the death}

What are their names?
Where are they located?

Your "six legs" thingy is a diversion from the moral question
raised by the OP.

The People can not make 2 + 2 = 8 either.

But The People CAN legalize Dueling and
Gladiatorial Games.

What Higher Power or Higher Authority is there
that has the Power and the Authority to say that
The People would be immoral to legalize Dueling
and Gladiatorial Games?

What are their names?
Where are they located?

JAG

``

 

Incorrect.
Anything The People created or established can be undone by
The People.
Democracy was created by The People and if The People had
the Power and Authority to create Democracy, then The People
have the Power and the Authority to abolish Democracy.

There is no Higher Power or Higher Authority than The People.

The People of the United States have the Power and the Authority
to abolish Democracy in the United States and establish a
Monarchy if they wanted to and to proclaim that their doing that is
a good moral thing to do. What Higher Power or Higher Authority
is there that can prevent The People from doing exactly that?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

Incorrect.
Anything The People created or established can be undone by
The People.
The US Bill Of Rights was created by The People and if The People
had the Power and Authority to create the US Bill Of Rights then
The People have the Power and the Authority to abolish the US Bill
Of Rights.

There is no Higher Power or Higher Authority than The People.

What Higher Power or Higher Authority is there that can prevent
The People from abolishing the US Bill Of Rights?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

Incorrect.
Any idea The People created, established, or approved, can be
rendered null and void by The People.
The idea of the "veil of ignorance" was created or established or
approved by some of The People and if The People had the Power
and Authority to create, establish, or approve the "veil of ignorance"
then The People have the Power and the Authority to abolish
the "veil of ignorance" and declare it null and void as an idea or
doctrine to be applied to any situation..

There is no Higher Power or Higher Authority than The People.

What Higher Power or Higher Authority is there that can prevent
The People from passing a Legal Binding Law that renders null
and void the "veil of ignorance"?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

Best.

JAG

``

 

Yes, the people can dismantle Democracy and declare a dictator to rule.

And isn't that exactly what you are doing when you push for your God as moral dictator? Or maybe actual dictator? You have refused to answer if you endorse theocracy.

 

Do The People Have The Moral Authority To Outlaw Atheism?

No!

No.

Time.

 

Always makes me laugh those who argue for a gods objective morality when your choice of god is completely subjective! Even amongst Christian s which of their gods laws they choose to follow is entirely subjective hence the penchant for killing each other over who has made the correct subjective choice of objective morals!

 

This question probably deserves it’s own thread, but from my ignorance and my curiosity That statement raises a general question in my mind; ‘What is a Real Christian? How would I be able to tell?

 

A REAL Christian is whatever sort of Christian the speaker happens to be.

 

Your OP was about where moral authority comes from on a secular humanist view. While I do not speak for all secular humanists, many suggest the hypothetical set of humans as that source of moral worth. To say that that's not what you're talking about is like saying "What is 4+4? And I'm not talking about 8". If you're not talking about that hypothetical set of humans, then you're not talking about the answer to your question.

Note that the hypothetical set of humans is not subject to whims, irrationality or vested interests. Therefore, all of your "what if 98% of humans suddenly did this", all of your appeals to what the capitalised "The People" do, are irrelevant to moral authority.

No, because your assumption that these have straightforward and meaningful answers is one of the things you are misguided about. I could piece together things which would technically be answers (their names and locations are explicitly hidden behind the veil of ignorance, which means that in a sense, they have every name and location that humans hypothetically could have) but I think they'd be missing the point.

I don't think I have suggested any of those things. The moral system that I have proposed is based on a hypothetical set of humans and they are capable of thinking pragmatically. You OP is not fundamentally concerned with pragmatism, but it is concerned with the moral underpinnings that can be suggested by secular views, and they can include pragmatism. If you disregard the pragmatic concerns, then you will not really have considered the answer that secular humanism provides.

Show me one.

To be fair, it wouldn't surprise me if there was one or another who had, but it has no particular connection with secular humanism or any similar view.

The hypothetical humans would not outlaw Free Speech, and so, it is not moral to do so. "The People" have legal authority, but not moral authority.

I hesitate to use examples like abortion, since there already is disagreement on what is moral there, so the argument may become muddled. Free Speech is a perfectly good and clear example, which illustrates the issue well.

 

This is simply an incorrect presentation of the view I have suggested. The "compelling conclusion" is only compelling to you. I think it is wrong. The hypothetical humans have moral authority above "The People".

Nope, you've described making those things legal, not making them moral. You have provided no reason to believe that the hypothetical humans would agree, and therefore, it has not been deemed moral or immoral on my view.

Yep, but if there is a moral authority in those hypothetical humans, then "The People" do not create morality, and "laws do not make actions moral" is still in effect.

I wouldn't say so, it directs us back to my actual answer of a hypothetical set of rational human beings behind the veil of ignorance, rather than the strawman you presented of "The People" as moral authority.

 

The "six legs" example seems to me to exemplify an important point. People saying something in a "legally binding way" does not make it so in any other way (such as a moral way). The morality that I have suggested does not fundamentally rely on democratic majority (just like the number of legs on a person doesn't), so 98% or 100% of humans making a "legal" or even "moral" proclamation is irrelevant, it does not satisfy the criteria that I have suggested.

They can make it legal, yes, but that is not the same thing as saying that they can make it moral. On the system I have proposed, "The People" do not have the power to make anything moral by legal or moral proclamation.

As far as I can tell, the Holocaust and Apartheid was largely legal, but it would be a far stretch to say that it was therefore moral.

I've given you the answer, it is our collective humanity. Not "The People" in the sense that we could democratically measure it with elections or other proclamations, but the fundamental human condition. The concept of an unbiased human can exist (and we can consider it, and base our reasoning in it) even if there exists no instance of an unbiased human. Their names are all the names (not just the ones that currently have people called them, but any name that a human could have).

One way to think of it is that you are the authority, but not you right now (since you could be swayed by your position and current concerns), instead we look to you "before" you knew where in society you would be (with some extra caveats, for instance, you would need to be rational and have certain knowledges).

 

I prefer to use more clearly cut examples, like Free Speech, or why not just frivolous murder. The arguments may become unclear because we may have different preconceptions about vegetarianism or the sanctity of dogs. The point I was trying to make is that while I refer to "humanity", the moral worth stretches to some extent to other beings, such as dogs.

Alright, so in that case, there is no value in your ultimate destiny (nothing to be sad about), but there is in the life we live now. Seems weird to be sad about the thing that doesn't matter.

 

I didn't say that the morality arises from the US Bill of Rights and the people's support of it (because that could indeed be voided), I said the idea exists, and that the US Bill of Rights reflect it. The people could, if it wanted, stop reflecting it in their laws (which is no real surprise, since we've seen immoral laws in the past).

Nope. I haven't suggested that the veil of ignorance was established by "The People" in any meaningful way. They can no more change it than they can decide to change their number of legs. It was in effect long before it was discovered and could have been decided upon by any humans.

 

Then they are in the wrong thread.
They need to make up their own Thought Experiment
based upon their "hypothetical set of humans."
I will not discuss that subject.
I will continue to discuss The Collective Humanity Of The Earth , ,
The People of my Thought Experiment
until the end of days.
Each and every time you attempt to switch to your
"hypothetical set of humans" I will immediately return
you to The Collective Humanity Of The Earth and to the
hard questions in my OP and in my follow-up posts.
These will NEVER go away.

The OP is clear that it is NOT talking about your "hypothetical
set of humans" but rather is talking about , , ,
The Collective Humanity Of The Earth.

i have zero interest in your "hypothetical set of humans"
That is your way of wiggling out of the hard questions of the OP
and my follow-up posts. You change the subject.
That changes my OP.
That changes my Thought Experiment.
You can start a thread on that if you desire.

Incorrect.
But we can continue to take opposite interpretations of my OP
like we did in the "atheists who celebrate" thread.
We're not going to agree on the color of an orange anyway,
so what difference does it make? None.

JAG

PS
By the way, if they mention my 6-12
I will ask them to embrace 11 and then state 14
and I will do that until the end of days.

``

 

JAG Wrote:
I have agreed with all of that, and several times too.
In fact I have an OP and a thread praising atheists for their present
high worth and value.
Question For John Atheist: Don't You Want To Remember Your Good Deeds Forever?
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-to-remember-your-good-deeds-forever.576683/

Swensson Replied:

No.
Just the opposite.
Because the atheists did good, noble, and heroic deeds
is all the more reason why Secular Humanism is a Religion
of Sadness, Gloom, Doom, Pessimism, and Destruction for
the human person --- which was the whole and entire point
of the OP that I linked you to. That OP emphasized the value
and importance of John Atheist Remembering His Good
Deeds Forever.
_____

Swensson, the desire for Eternal Life is based in sanity.
The Sin Principle has introduced pure insanity into the
minds of all human beings --- and that principle has made
it seem "reasonable" to NOT desire Eternal Life -- it is
pure insanity to be satisfied with becoming 0000000.
No rational mind can decide to NOT care if they cease
to exist. This is simply pure irrationality. If it is a good
thing for John Atheist to have say 90 years of Good,
Noble, and Heroic deeds --- then it is a much better
and more magnificent thing for John Atheist to
continue on this Noble Path Forever and Ever --
Eternal Life.

The Sin Principle has befuddled the minds of all
humans. We are not "right in the head."
_____

We reach person-destructive conclusions.
We reach soul-destroying conclusions.

JAG

 

Yes. Especially when you refuse to use your own sense of right and wrong and instead substitute it out for obedience to power, such as King or a God.

 

Disagree.
By the way, if you are correct, and you are not correct, but if
you are correct, then that means we have nothing to discuss here.
I am sticking with my OP and my follow-up posts and the hard questions
that are therein.
___________

If there are no "straightforward and meaningful answers" to these
questions below --- then this OP and my follow-up posts are
un-discussable.
JAG Asks:
"What Higher Power or Higher Authority is there above The People?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

What Truth Reality exists that has more Power and Authority than The People Of Earth?
What are their names?
Where are they located?"___JAG

I look forward to your up-coming OP and your thread on
that subject. I'll be reading along in it.

Who or What does have Moral Authority?
What are their names?
Where are they located?
If you say it is a "What" -- then what is it?
But more importantly exactly WHO has The Power
or The Authority to interpret what the "What" says?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

_______

Remember now that this OP is a Thought Experiment.

If Collective Humanity decided to pass legislation that
legalized , ,
~ Dueling {with pistols to the death to settle personal disputes.}
~ Gladiatorial Games {fighting to the death} , , ,

, , , what Moral Authority is there that has The Power and
The Authority to render null and void the will of Collective
Humanity regarding the legalization of Dueling and
Gladiatorial Games and to declare Collective Humanity
to be immoral to legalize Dueling and Gladiatorial Games?
What are their names?
Where are they located?

JAG

``

 

Both were not legalized by 100% of Collective Humanity.
Both were not declared to be moral by 100% of Collective Humanity.
__________
Remember this is a Thought Experiment.
Of course I personally agree they were both immoral.
But this OP is not about what I personally believe regarding
"Hitlah" and South Africa.
__________

If 100% of Collective Humanity issued a Moral Proclamation
that said the Holocaust and Apartheid were indeed moral, what
Moral Authority or Higher Power has the Power or Authority to
render null and void the issued Moral Proclamation of 100% of
Collective Humanity declaring that both were indeed moral?
What are their names?
Where are they located?


JAG




,

 

The "veil of ignorance" was not established
by , , ,
Trees
Pigs
Automobiles , , or
God , , {on your lights}
, , so that leaves people.
And if people established it,
then people can render it null and void.

If 100% of Collective Humanity issued a
proclamation declaring the "veil of ignorance"
to be null and void, what Higher Power or
Higher Authority has the Power and the Authority
to render null and void the will of 100% of
Collective Humanity regarding the "veil of ignorance."
What are their names?
Where are they located?



JAG

 

RE: Do The People Have The Moral Authority To Outlaw Atheism?
⁜→ "JAG,* et al,

(ANSWERs)

(A1) and (A2) A person (or group of people) act as the "Final Authority" on Moral Issues for that set of people. The set of people determine the scope and nature of their governing body that formulates the implementation of policy and directs the operation of the self-governing institution.

(A3) Truth and Reality are NOT necessarily the same things.

✦ "Truth" is a state of being.

• There is a Supreme Being.
• There is not a Supreme Being.
​

✦ "Reality" existential issue on perception. The "Reality" is a that the answer is irrelevant: In the real-world (Reality) there are:

• Believers
• Non-Believers
* Those in an indeterminant state.
​

This is the classic direction often referred to as "thinking inside the box" and "thinking outside the box."

✦ IF there is a Supreme Being, THEN the non-Believer outside "Reality."
✦ IF there is NO Supreme Being, THEN the non-Believer is inside "Reality."
​

In either case, the actual "truth" does not change.

(A4) Authority is the state of power to regulate and enforce the will of the self-governing institution. Don't confuse it with the truth. The Authority can enforce that which is NOT true - or - that which is "true," - or - the Authority may be silent on the issue. It is possible that the Authority may even redefine or replace the issue.

(A5) and (A6) The location or state of the reality associated with the truth can only be answered by the process of verification. Otherwise, it is merely a theory in which many believe. Again, "Existence" (as you are using it here) is a question of affirming or implying the existence of the "item under test" or the "issue under logical examination" → or not.

(A7) and (A and (A9) The authority that can make the determination is the one with the recognized credentials and a theory that is accepted by the peer group. In the case of the Supreme Being, the Abrahamic Religions have multiple authorities. IF the (His Eminence) Pope (Vatican) or the (His Eminence) Grand Ayatollah (Iran) or the Chief Rabbinate (Israel), say that there is a Supreme Being, THEN for the many believers the perception is a reality. We call this a conditional representation of reality (an IF-THEN statement). (Obviously, I am not an authority.)

Most Respectfully,
R