seebs

Oh, we use other mechanisms to build upon it, but the basic question of what results we want is purely arbitrary.

No, I'm quite willing to agree that, *once* we have picked goals, we can be very thorough in verifying that the laws we've chosen correlate well with them. (Well, in practice, we can be very thorough in verifying that the laws *don't*, but that's a separate issue.)

I see an objective claim, but the assertion that we should make laws against things people don't want done to them has roots in systems of belief which, while nearly universal, cannot be confirmed or denied by any real-world facts.

I personally agree that it might well be reasonable to make laws against things that "most people don't want done to them", but a well-crafted sodomy law is certainly such a law, and I know a few people who would object strenuously to being told that it was no longer legal to be fucked in the ass. So, I see problems in the generalization.

In the end, I don't see any physical phenomenon I can go out and measure saying that we should or shouldn't pass a law against something just because most people wouldn't want it done to them. I also don't think that's the basis of most laws in the real world; I think most laws are put in place because people believe an action to be "morally wrong" and argue against it.

If you read, for instance, the Constitution of the U.S., I see a lot more support for "this is morally right" and "this is morally just" as a mental model of the legal system, and virtually none for "most people wouldn't want this done to them". Indeed, it's pretty clear that there was general consent that most people wouldn't be smart enough to object to having some of their rights taken away, making it all the more important to enshrine those rights.

The idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is itself a purely moral claim, rooted in the belief that alternatives are "injust". That opinion, while it happens to be one I share, is no more rooted in scientific methodology than any other moral belief rooted directly in personal moral judgement.

Rather, I think the "this" under discussion is just as subjective. Outside of a philosophical system accepted a priori, I see no way to draw any such conclusions.

Every Christian I know feels some kind of response to prayer. That's good enough for me.

Indirectly. My experiences lead me to believe in a personal God. Christianity fits the model I built best.

Arrowman

Well, if I was on trial and I had the chance, I suppose I'd test the jury on their propensity to believe in astrology, e-mail scams, homeopathy, whether Elvis is alive, and most importantly, their views on current events (with an eye on how they read and interpret the media). In other words, skeptical stuff and rational thought.

Religion would be way down the list, but I'd expect the more irrational theists to be culled by the above process anyway.

I'd rather have on my jury an Anglican priest who shows skeptical thought in all other aspects of life, than an atheist who thinks psychics are real because if they weren't psychich phone lines wouldn't be legal....

beyelzu

kassiana,

hate to break it to you, but as there is nothing supernatural in the world. pagans are quite possible the most deluded of all theists. if you are representative of them. because you actually do claim to have seen proof of a deity. at least most xians dont do that. so it would follow that you dont apply the same standards that a juror must to your everyday life at all. at least not if you are going around and seeing the divine.

i added a couple of smiley faces to my post to make it a little more palatable.

beyelzu

i definitely wouldnt want a fundie jury. i would be found guilty right when i said i cant take the oath with the word god in it or touching a bible.

seebs

Ahh, I see. Because, knowing that you personally would automatically find a fundamentalist guilty simply because you hold him in contempt, you assume he would do the same?

Sheesh!

beyelzu

i have never cussed out a fundie for believing in god. nor have i told him that he is going to born in hell. i might think he is stupid. but i dont think he deserves to be punished for his ideas, after all the ideas themselves are punishment enough.


seebs, remember that post i made the other day, about what i hate is when christians look at me like some sort of freak when i tell them that i am an atheist. i dont look at fundies quite that way.

seebs

Perhaps, but your unwillingness to believe that any of them might even be honest suggests the same blanket contempt for the individuals in that group.

Tell 'ya what, you work on that splinter in your eye, I'll work on the redwood forest in theirs, 'k?

beyelzu

sounds like a deal seebs.

Kassiana

Beyelzu:
hate to break it to you, but as there is nothing supernatural in the world.

Kass:
You are entitled to hold that belief as much as I hold the belief that you're wrong, which I do.

Beyelzu:
pagans are quite possible the most deluded of all theists.

Kass:
Come on, the Raelians and Scientologists don't make it in before me? Please.

Beyelzu:
so it would follow that you dont apply the same standards that a juror must to your everyday life at all.

Kass:
So what? I don't apply the standards that a butcher or a Republican or a fundamentalist or a Buddhist does, either. Guess what? In my ordinary life I'm NOT A JUROR! And other than your desire for me to be one, I see no reason for me to become one.

Given your unpleasantness toward me, I find your opinion to be very low on my "important stuff I should do" list.

BTW, the supernatural does exist. If you don't see it and don't want to, fine. It's not your job to try to make me give up my religious beliefs...and if it is, you're added to my ignore list. I detest all evangelical types, whether atheist, Hindu, or Christian.

Rousseau_CHN

Apparently, the moderators don't think so...hell, they wouldn't even let theists be moderators.