Western Values are Christian Values?

[Christian]

Jet Grind wrote:
Come again?

1. US Senators are not equal under the law, illegal aliens are not equal under the law, gay couples are not equal under the law, etc, etc, etc.

2. The burden is on you to prove you are solvent to get a grant, you must prove you have paid your taxes if audited, in a civil case, the burden is on a company to prove it was not negligent.


thaiboxerken wrote:
This is a contradictory statement that doesn't apply.

Can you please explain why?

I think that's the current system, and I don't agree with it.

It only makes sense in penal law, why would you not agree with it in the other areas? Do you think banks should not require people prove they worthy of credit?

I'm atheist, and that's not my position.

It should be. It's in your best interest.

 

[Chupacabras]

1. US Senators are not equal under the law, illegal aliens are not equal under the law, gay couples are not equal under the law, etc, etc, etc.

Hellooooooo... This is Mexico here, a western country...

I honestly think you are confusing the extent of terms here. Senators, illegal aliens, etcetera, are equal among themselves under the same Law. They are treated in a different form because of a circunstancial (sp?) and probably temporary status. Even the Law provides for this in advance. If anyone is treated "unfairly", then that could be out of the Law, and it's another matter.

2. The burden is on you to prove you are solvent to get a grant...

Because you ask for a grant that is in your interest and by applying you are stating necesarily that you are elligible (by most standards, mind you). So, you are making a positive statement in advance and therefore you are requested to provide evidence. Besides, if it is on the list of requirements, it's up to anyone to comply or not...

... you must prove you have paid your taxes if audited, in a civil case, the burden is on a company to prove it was not negligent.

In Mexico (western country), the Government kindly requests proof that you have paid. And in Mexico (with all our deficiencies), no, in a civil case the burden is on the one who proposes the positive premise, namely the accuser.

It should be. It's in your best interest.

Uh... You might be required to prove that!

 

[Christian]

Chupacabras wrote:
Hellooooooo... This is Mexico here, a western country...

I honestly think you are confusing the extent of terms here. Senators, illegal aliens, etcetera, are equal among themselves under the same Law. They are treated in a different form because of a circunstancial (sp?) and probably temporary status. Even the Law provides for this in advance. If anyone is treated "unfairly", then that could be out of the Law, and it's another matter.

I don't think I'm confusing anything. "Equal under the law" does not mean "equal under the law". We are not equal under the law.

Fine, you want to take Mexico. Diplomats in Mexico have inmunity of many laws.

And this has nothing to do with fair or unfair. (that is totally subjective).

In most Western Countries, people under 18 can't vote, most people would not call that unfair.


Laws and status come hand in hand. They are applicable to status.

Because you ask for a grant that is in your interest and by applying you are stating necesarily that you are elligible (by most standards, mind you). So, you are making a positive statement in advance and therefore you are requested to provide evidence. Besides, if it is on the list of requirements, it's up to anyone to comply or not...

This is irrelevant to the point. The point is that "guilty until proven inocent" is a standard only applied to penal code.

I can say most people use the "guilty until proven innocent" approach in most areas in life. And this is most certainly try in most other areas of law.

In Mexico (western country), the Government kindly requests proof that you have paid. And in Mexico (with all our deficiencies), no, in a civil case the burden is on the one who proposes the positive premise, namely the accuser.

Ok, so you have the kind burden to show you are innocent of tax evasion.

No, e.g. a restaurant accused of food poisoning has to prove that it follows sanitation standards (such as HACCP). If it fails to show this, big trouble.

You are probably thinking of civil trials involving individuals. In most civil trials involving corporations, the burden of standard is on the the corporations. They must show they are innocent.

Uh... You might be required to prove that!

You cannot impose your morality on anyone but, you can impose legal codes on them. If you want to stop anyone from harming you, you must strive to make all pertinent norms legal or social. Otherwise, those norms are useless and ineffective.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This is a contradictory statement that doesn't apply.

Can you please explain why?

A is not A. That's what you've basically said. Contradictions are non-arguements and nonsense.

I think that's the current system, and I don't agree with it.

It only makes sense in penal law, why would you not agree with it in the other areas? Do you think banks should not require people prove they worthy of credit?

Civil law cases are often in the position that a person is guilty until proven innocent. If you are suspected of tax-evasion, for example, you have to prove to the IRS that you haven't. What banks do, I could care less, I thought we were talking about government, try to stay on target.

I'm atheist, and that's not my position.

It should be. It's in your best interest. [/B]

Why?

 

[Christian]

A is not A. That's what you've basically said. Contradictions are non-arguements and nonsense.

Don't be so quick to dismiss my comment. If your only field of reference is math, you are correct. But that is not the only reference there is.

In the world of hermeneutics A "can" not be A. Certainly "all are equal under the law" does not mean we are all equal under the law. I have provided examples.

Civil law cases are often in the position that a person is guilty until proven innocent.

You are correct.

If you are suspected of tax-evasion, for example, you have to prove to the IRS that you haven't.

You are also correct and this makes the system more efficient, imagine if were the other way around. With millions of declarations each year, it would be impossible for the IRS to control the system. Evasion would be rampant and the whole system would collapse.

What banks do, I could care less, I thought we were talking about government, try to stay on target.

Fine, I just wanted to point out that most systems work under the "guilty until proven innocent" premise, including the government.

Why?

As an atheist, the only way to ensure safety for yourself is to make sure rules become either legal or social. Moral rules are worthless because you cannot impose them on anyone and if someone else's moral norms directly affect you, you can only stop them from affecting you by countering them with legal or social norms.

Morality is, in practical terms, useless for atheists, they are unenforcible and cannot be corroborated effectively in terms of compliance.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In the world of hermeneutics A "can" not be A. Certainly "all are equal under the law" does not mean we are all equal under the law. I have provided examples.

Perhaps if you would've explained your statement instead of isolating it. I cannot judge context of a statement without the context provided.

If you are suspected of tax-evasion, for example, you have to prove to the IRS that you haven't.
Evasion would be rampant and the whole system would collapse.

I don't agree. The IRS should not go after people until they have evidence to support their notion that a person isn't paying taxes. We'd need to revamp the system, but that doesn't mean the system is fine as it is.


Fine, I just wanted to point out that most systems work under the "guilty until proven innocent" premise, including the government.

I like the notion of innocent until proven guilty when it comes to punishment type of circumstances.

As an atheist, the only way to ensure safety for yourself is to make sure rules become either legal or social.

Or, carry a bigger gun. Also, social is not something you mentioned earlier, I'd like to see a world where social "morals" become secular and adhered to. I am dreaming though.

Moral rules are worthless because you cannot impose them on anyone and if someone else's moral norms directly affect you, you can only stop them from affecting you by countering them with legal or social norms.

I'm not so sure. People break laws all of the time according to their own particular morals. Many people place morals above law and law above morals according to circumstance.

Morality is, in practical terms, useless for atheists, they are unenforcible and cannot be corroborated effectively in terms of compliance.

I think that morality can be secular and imposed upon the public by education.

 

[Christian]

thaiboxerken wrote:
Perhaps if you would've explained your statement instead of isolating it. I cannot judge context of a statement without the context provided.

You are right, I assumed the context was implied, I'm sorry.

I don't agree. The IRS should not go after people until they have evidence to support their notion that a person isn't paying taxes. We'd need to revamp the system, but that doesn't mean the system is fine as it is.

I'm tempted to respond but that would lead as to yet another tangent.

I like the notion of innocent until proven guilty when it comes to punishment type of circumstances.

Me too.

Or, carry a bigger gun. Also, social is not something you mentioned earlier, I'd like to see a world where social "morals" become secular and adhered to. I am dreaming though.

Well, remember under the common definition of atheist morality, morality is internal and self-regulating, thus, once norms become social, they cease to have the merit of moral.

I'm not so sure. People break laws all of the time according to their own particular morals. Many people place morals above law and law above morals according to circumstance.

This is an excellent point and it bring the opportunity to point out that breaking moral codes has no chance of eithe coercion or punishment. Not so with social or legal codes.

The only safe avenue for atheist is to strive for codes to be social and legal. And in the most important ones, for them to be legal.

I think that morality can be secular and imposed upon the public by education.


The problem is that once you impose them, they stop being moral (according to atheist).

 

[thaiboxerken]

Well, remember under the common definition of atheist morality, morality is internal and self-regulating, thus, once norms become social, they cease to have the merit of moral.

I've never heard of "atheist morality" actually, and if follows that I don't know what this common definition is. I don't agree that morality is internal and self-regulating, morality must also come from external sources such as society, and society also is a regulating factor. I don't know any person that lives in a vaccuum.

The only safe avenue for atheist is to strive for codes to be social and legal. And in the most important ones, for them to be legal.

What's the danger to an atheist that doesn't follow your advice?


The problem is that once you impose them, they stop being moral (according to atheist).

I'm atheist, and I don't hold that position.

These "atheist" positions of yours, are they just straw-men?

 

[Christian]

thaiboxerken wrote:
I've never heard of "atheist morality" actually, and if follows that I don't know what this common definition is.

Let me give the definition I've I think most atheist adhere to and you tell if it is consistent with what you believe morality to be (or being moral)

According to atheist, one is moral if one lives according one ones values. This is the highest form of morality because you are not good (or do the right thing) for fear of outside punishment or reward, but you are moral out of conviction, out of the consistency with what you as a human being value most.

I don't agree that morality is internal and self-regulating, morality must also come from external sources such as society, and society also is a regulating factor. I don't know any person that lives in a vaccuum.

I think we are having a semantics problem here. When I say morality is internal and self-regulating I don't mean the source is exclusively internal (the source of morality is irrelevant to my point). What I mean is that it is not imposed or coerced in any way. It is internal because it comes out of personal conviction, (just like "thoughts" are internal and self-regulating [you can appreciate that someone might argue that not a single thought of ours is original but taken from somewhere, and we still consider our thought to be ours])

The difference with social (or legal) norms is that they exist and are enforced regardless of our conviction or position about them. This place (the forum) is an excellent example. When I first came here, people would use curse words left and right, then, social norms were introduced, and these people "had" to comply. (regardless of their opinion or conviction about it)

What's the danger to an atheist that doesn't follow your advice?

Chaos and anarchy (or the rule of the strongest). Maybe this analogy can explain it.

I understand that the computer binary system uses diferent standards (ASCII, UNICODE, ISO). Suppose, it was left up to every programmer or computer related person to desing his or her on system of representation. What would happen if a standard did not exist?

So, if morality is a matter of personal choice, what is the outcome, and worse if a standard someone else is using affects you negatively, what do you do?


I'm atheist, and I don't hold that position.

These "atheist" positions of yours, are they just straw-men?

Ok, so when a Christian says he does not committ steal because it is against God's law, then, according to you, he is being moral.

The position that has always been put to me is that, because Christians do or not do things for fear of punishment or reward they are not being moral. That, in order for an act to be moral, it must be free of outside forces (looses its merit). To be moral, according to atheist, it must come from the internal conviction of what is right and free of coercion or like.


By the way, I like your signature...

 

[thaiboxerken]

According to atheist, one is moral if one lives according one ones values. This is the highest form of morality because you are not good (or do the right thing) for fear of outside punishment or reward, but you are moral out of conviction, out of the consistency with what you as a human being value most.

You should change this to "according to SOME atheists". I don't agree with this definition. Morality is merely a set of standards built by both the individual and society.


So, if morality is a matter of personal choice, what is the outcome, and worse if a standard someone else is using affects you negatively, what do you do?

Wait, are you argueing that "atheist" morality should be a matter of personal choice or not? I think it's a combination of law, societal "norms" and personal choices. To use law to enforce all morality takes away from freedom. To not have any law, gives too much freedom to those that would abuse.


Ok, so when a Christian says he does not committ steal because it is against God's law, then, according to you, he is being moral.

Yea, his motivations are stupid, but he's still not doing anything wrong.

The position that has always been put to me is that, because Christians do or not do things for fear of punishment or reward they are not being moral.

It's my understanding that christians do or don't because of fear and rewards of some afterlife.

That, in order for an act to be moral, it must be free of outside forces (looses its merit). To be moral, according to atheist, it must come from the internal conviction of what is right and free of coercion or like.

Internal convictions must come from many outside influences. Your strawman doesn't make any sense to me. I think that "morals" should come from reasoning on what the real consequences of actions are, not the fictional consequences that the religious are fond of spouting.


By the way, I like your signature...

Thanks, John Edward would be proud.

 

[Roadtoad]

I don't know that I would say America is a nation founded purely on Christian beliefs, nor would I say Western Civilization is necessarily a Christian Civilization.

Both are, obviously, founded on theistic beliefs, but beyond that, you're dealing with what the market will bear. Religion may have played a role in the nation's founding, but it's still pretty much what Machiavelli discussed in The Prince. The Constitution has been left in the dust, providing nothing more than a bare outline of what we wanted our nation to be, a statement of principle now left as a historic relic, fading into intellectual fantasy of what might have been.

As far as Western Civilization goes, it's been more about the subtlety of our cruelty, rather than about Christian values.

 

[Loki]

ceo_esq,

Thanks for the excerpt - I still haven't found the time to chase down the full article. From the little you've posted, it seems that the central argument can be paraphrased as :

1. God originally devised an "opt out" system.
2. Adam and Eve decided to "Opt out" the entire human race.
3. Every individual therefore now operates in the current "opt in" system.
4. The "presumption of innocence" is an attempt to model the Law on the original system, not the current one (ie, the god-inspired one, not the Adam and Eve version).

Sounds a little like a post-justification to me, but it seems to float even if it looks a little like a leaky boat.

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Just the mention of your name in a post is enough to draw you back to the JREF!!

Suppose, it was left up to every programmer or computer related person to desing his or her on system of representation. What would happen if a standard did not exist?

Seriously, whenever you discuss this I am left with 4 alternatives to explain what you write :

1. You don't understand Secular Humanist morality;
2. I don't understand Secular Humanist morality;
3. Neither of us understands it;
4. Both of us understand it, but one (or both) of us express ourselves so poorly that the other doesn't comprehend what is being said.

Now, it will come as no surprise to you to hear that I think the most likely explanation is #1. But I'm sure you'd disagree, and I'm not sure that I have the energy to try and disect this yet again!

Let me just say that IMO under Secular Humanism the source of morals is external, but the commitment to living a moral life is internal - does that explain things any better? Does that agree or disagree with your view?

To follow through with your computer encoding systems analogy, the design of encoding systems is a collective effort, but each individual must on their own (a) understand and embrace the need for a system; (b) select a system that they feel works best and (c) actively involve themselves in improving and correcting the system if they believe it has flaws.

So, if morality is a matter of personal choice...

How is your morality not a "personal choice"? I have little doubt I can find a christian who would be prepared to say that striking a child with a rod under any conditions is immoral, and that the source of this conviction is the bible (ie, god). You'd disagree, and consider that "reasonable/appropriate" use of the rod is moral, and that failure to use the rod at the "appropriate" times is actually immoral. You'd offer the bible as the source for this conviction. In what way then is your moral standing on this issue not a matter of "personal choice", based upon your use of your intellect to interpret the data (ie, scripture, society, life) placed in front of you?

With millions of declarations each year, it would be impossible for the IRS to control the system. Evasion would be rampant and the whole system would collapse.
...
Fine, I just wanted to point out that most systems work under the "guilty until proven innocent" premise, including the government.

I'm not sure if I'd agree that "most" systems of social interaction (legal, governmental, or otherwise) use the "guilty until proven innocent" principle, but let's not argue about the exact number here. My point here is simple - the basic, guiding principle is "innocent until proven guilty". As often happens, this principle can and is overridden by the needs of a given situation. Theory meets reality, and reality wins. The tax system reverses this principle, in the interests of building a workable system (we can discuss alternative tax systems). Your ability to find and list systems that do not follow "innocent until proven guilty" is, I believe, missing the point. It seems to me that the principle is accepted as the base/starting point, but can be overridden by practical concerns. It forms the framework in which systems are devised, and forces anyone who wishes to override the principle to provide adequate reasons and justifications for doing so. It also provides a framework for reviewing and revising existing systems, to see if the reality can be brought more into line with the theory.

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Just the mention of your name in a post is enough to draw you back to the JREF!!

The power of narcism.

Seriously, whenever you discuss this I am left with 4 alternatives to explain what you write :

1. You don't understand Secular Humanist morality;
2. I don't understand Secular Humanist morality;
3. Neither of us understands it;
4. Both of us understand it, but one (or both) of us express ourselves so poorly that the other doesn't comprehend what is being said.

Now, it will come as no surprise to you to hear that I think the most likely explanation is #1. But I'm sure you'd disagree, and I'm not sure that I have the energy to try and disect this yet again!

I'l also go with #1

Let me just say that IMO under Secular Humanism the source of morals is external, but the commitment to living a moral life is internal - does that explain things any better? Does that agree or disagree with your view?

Excellent. I think I'm able to understand why I had so much trouble last time around in explaining myself. But, now I think I think I can explain it better.

Fine, if you want to say the source is external I will agree. (this would be the same as you saying that the source of your thoughts is external). Now, this is where I want you to pay close attention, when you say your commitment to moral norms is internal, what does that mean (to me is like you're saying although the source of my thought is external, I choose which thoughts to have).

The volition (your choice to follow these norms) is internal and self-regulating. Is it not?

To follow through with your computer encoding systems analogy, the design of encoding systems is a collective effort, but each individual must on their own (a) understand and embrace the need for a system; (b) select a system that they feel works best and (c) actively involve themselves in improving and correcting the system if they believe it has flaws.

The point is that, if you want be in the game, you must embrace the system and if you want to improve the system, you must do it through the proper channels.

If you decide not to use any existing system, yours is useless.

How is your morality not a "personal choice"?

In your context, it is menu of infinite choices. In my context, it is decision of yes/no.

I have little doubt I can find a christian who would be prepared to say that striking a child with a rod under any conditions is immoral, and that the source of this conviction is the bible (ie, god). You'd disagree, and consider that "reasonable/appropriate" use of the rod is moral, and that failure to use the rod at the "appropriate" times is actually immoral. You'd offer the bible as the source for this conviction. In what way then is your moral standing on this issue not a matter of "personal choice", based upon your use of your intellect to interpret the data (ie, scripture, society, life) placed in front of you?

In my context, I can either discipline my child or not. If I don't, there are consequences.

In your context, there are no consequences.

It's good that you bring out examples. Let's use another one. I believe abortions are immoral (I also believe abortions should be legal in my country). So, it is my belief that, when a moral law is broken, God has set up a system of consequences. To me, there a consequences to having an abortion. Those consequences cannot be escaped. It is an objective system.

There is no reason for you to believe this. To you, past unconnected events, cannot have any effect on the future. In your view, a man can kill another, and if done flawlessly, he will get away with it. There wont be divine justice to come and get him. That passed event wont come to haunt him later on if he decides it should not bother him.

I'm not sure if I'd agree that "most" systems of social interaction (legal, governmental, or otherwise) use the "guilty until proven innocent" principle, but let's not argue about the exact number here.

Fine, but it is the case.

My point here is simple - the basic, guiding principle is "innocent until proven guilty".

You're watching to many movies.

This is only applicable to penal law. It is not the guiding principle in most interactions.

Let me ask you, is a high level of trust earned or is it given?

As often happens, this principle can and is overridden by the needs of a given situation.

What you are not really getting here is that below this principle you speak of is an even more fundamental principle that hold the one you speak of.

"Effort precedes reward". The innocent until proven guilty is actually the reverse of how things work (in the natural world and human interaction). The reason it is the exception is that the penal system is the only one that can punish you with the loss of physical freedom. So, in the quest for justice, the burden is shifted (reversed) so to theoretically minimize injustices.

And let me tell you something, in reality, the "real" burden is on the accused to prove he is innocent. This is why there is a 90 something conviction percentage rate of poor defendants and much less for defendants with money.

By far, the best legal strategy for a defendant is to prove he is innocent.

Theory meets reality, and reality wins. The tax system reverses this principle, in the interests of building a workable system (we can discuss alternative tax systems).

The way any system naturally flows is that one must prove to get to the other side. That is just the way it is.

Your ability to find and list systems that do not follow "innocent until proven guilty" is, I believe, missing the point.

Tell you what, show me a system that works like you say (other than the penal one)

It seems to me that the principle is accepted as the base/starting point, but can be overridden by practical concerns.

It seems to me that the principle is the reverse as the base/starting point. e.g. You are a terrible student until you can show me with consistent good grades that you are a good student.

It forms the framework in which systems are devised, and forces anyone who wishes to override the principle to provide adequate reasons and justifications for doing so. It also provides a framework for reviewing and revising existing systems, to see if the reality can be brought more into line with the theory.

So, then you should show me a system, any system that works under the framework of innocent until proven guilty (of course, other than the penal one)

 

[Loki]

Christian,

Plenty to reply to, and I'll try to get to the main points later today. Just two quick ones for you to think about....

The point is that, if you want be in the game, you must embrace the system and if you want to improve the system, you must do it through the proper channels.

If you decide not to use any existing system, yours is useless.

You know, perhaps we've just found the core of our misunderstanding - at least, I hope so, since I'd feel good about finally figuring out why we don't seem to communicate well on this issue. Let me rephrase your final sentence as I think it should be : "If you decide not to use any existing system, then you aren't a Secular Humanist". Does that help?

So, then you should show me a system, any system that works under the framework of innocent until proven guilty (of course, other than the penal one)

The Electoral system. You are presumed "innocent" (eligible to vote) until you do something to show otherwise.
The Australian welfare system. You are presumed "innocent" (eligible for benefits) until such time as you demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Loki]

Bump (For Christian?)

 

[Christian]

Loki wrote:
Bump (For Christian?)

I was waiting for a further reply.

Posted by Loki:
Plenty to reply to, and I'll try to get to the main points later today. Just two quick ones for you to think about....