Change order of comments:  



Comments on:   test . . .


Comments on This Entry (Add your comments in the form below):
Nick  2012-11-06 04:36:00

Brizoni:

Theism-- even belief in a "good" God like the Christian God-- is an insufficient basis for a free social contract. You cannot consistently believe that goodness comes from God AND believe that men ought to be free to make up their own minds about God. You can ignore or evade the contradiction, as the Founders did, but the contradiction persists.

A (if not the) central point of Christianity is that goodness comes from God, and that God made man free to make up his own mind about God. The whole point about being in God's image is that man is free. Some variants of Christianity have had more trouble with this idea than others (c.f. Calvinism), but if you'd done a bit more reading you'd see that you've hardly latched on to Christianity's Achilles heel.

Theism has been the critical component of free social contracts. Inalienable rights are endowed by a Creator, not the State, which is precisely why the State has no authority to either grant or repeal them. You aren't entitled to take my right to life away not because the State says you can't but because God does.

I'm going to suggest the exact opposite of your position: atheism is an insufficient basis for a free social contract. How can you and I agree that I have a right to live? You can't get there from science. All science teaches us is that the only things with a right to live are the things that keep from dying (by any means). According to science, if I can't prevent you from killing me, then I have no "right" to live. In fact, "rights" aren't a scientific concept. So on what basis are you compelled to grant me the right to live? Sure, you can say "Hey, I want you to live." But this is arbitrary on your part. To what common recognized authority can I appeal should you change your mind? And how will this contract scale to other atheists who lack your benevolence? In order for it to work, we have to have a foundation we can all agree on.

This goes to Mr. Laird's recent question on abortion. The abortion issue calls out the groundlessness of the atheist social contract. Under atheism, there is no basis for life to have value at all, least of all unborn life. It encapsulates the essence of the issue: One person can take a life simply because she a) has the power and b) deems it expedient for her. What is your basis for saying she shouldn't?

You actually had the chutzpah to use the phrase "sanctity of human life". But what does this mean? "Sanctity" means "holiness" or "sacredness". What do those terms mean in the absence of God? Why is life holy or sacred? And whose life are we talking about? Your life has no value to anyone but you and the people who might care about you. By taking your life now and harvesting your organs, I could save the lives of several other people. Why is your life more sacred than their combined lives?

You should think this through a bit more.



Mrs. RL  2012-11-05 05:34:00

Brizoni,

Since I know you have at least passed through the Boomer Bible, surely you must have been aware of the basis for it. Your pathetic arguments for atheism disclose how little you understand of what RL has written.

This is disgusting and a disgrace. You have been welcomed here, given privileges, received attention from the best living English writer, and yet you can't do anything but attack over and over in a completely boorish and boring manner.

You owe a huge apology. This blog is intended to share thoughts, discussions, and observations. It belongs to IP, not you.

Stop now.



RL  2012-11-05 03:21:00

Brizoni:

What are you, pushing 30 now? Old enough to deal with complexity:

"The Old Man has retreated into full feckless God partisanship. But that's not who he really is. He's just tired of days and hours. He wants me to kill him. I won't do it. Instead, I'm going to save him. Drag him kicking and screaming into the light.

In grateful return, he's going to acknowledge that I'm right about God and liberty being incompatible. Contrary to one of his pet theses.

**My lifelong point about atheism and existentialism and all its materialistic variants has always been that they simply don't work as a basis for a social contract.**

He's got it backwards. Theism-- even belief in a "good" God like the Christian God-- is an insufficient basis for a free social contract. You cannot consistently believe that goodness comes from God AND believe that men ought to be free to make up their own minds about God. You can ignore or evade the contradiction, as the Founders did, but the contradiction persists. Anyone committed to liberty has to at least subconsciously work from a different moral premise. "

What a lawyer in a blighted life so young. You cannot believe that perfume comes from the flower AND believe that people are free to love the perfume.

Life is not reason. You are a jerk. God exists. Because there is a moment between darkness and death when all the secret fingers of nature take hold of your heart and poke it to life.

Hey. I'm willing to exclude God from any argument you want to have. I'll still kill you. You don't get that? Never figured Brizoni for a total fool. Until now.



Lake  2012-11-05 03:07:00

That first comment was a response to the "testing, testing" post... before this litany was posted.



Helk  2012-11-05 01:08:00

Old man. ROFL.

For RF.

Helk



Lake  2012-11-05 10:31:00

It worked!



Change order of comments:  


If you would like to post a comment, please complete the following form. Keep your comments on point. Have fun. Thanks.


Post a comment