Should firearms be outlawed in the US?

[Praxus]

As to the rest, either God doesn't exist and there is no morality

Morality is not confined to religion. I believe in Morality but I am Agnostic.

Agnosticism is not a religion. It is mearly accepting god's excistence as a possibility.

American is a Christian nation

America is a secular nation, people in it are mostly Christian. This does not make it a Christian Nation.

But please explain to me how Christian principles translates into Individual Rights, Capitalism, and Rugged Individualism?

[Leader]

Originally posted by Praxus
Morality is not confined to religion.

Morality is conformed by the existence of God not religion. Why is one thing moral and another not moral? Who is to decide such things? If I think one thing is moral and you think it isn't, who is right? If there was not moral law set out at the beginning of the universe then we are simply making up as we go along. There is no righteousness in that.

America is a secular nation, people in it are mostly Christian. This does not make it a Christian Nation.

First America is not mostly Christian. It is overwhelmingly so. Religion has been an important part of the culture and governance of this nation since it's founding.

[Praxus]

Morality is conformed by the existence of God not religion. Why is one thing moral and another not moral? Who is to decide such things? If I think one thing is moral and you think it isn't, who is right? If there was not moral law set out at the beginning of the universe then we are simply making up as we go along. There is no righteousness in that.

So you think mankind is to stupid to determine what is moral or not?

In my mind the Initiator of Force or Fraud is always Immoral, and the person using retalitory force is always moral.

First America is not mostly Christian. It is overwhelmingly so. Religion has been an important part of the culture and governance of this nation since it's founding.

"Mostly" implies a majority(which can be 99.999%).

But please explain to me how Christian principles translates into Individual Rights, Capitalism, and Rugged Individualism?

[Leader]

Originally posted by Praxus
So you think mankind is to stupid to determine what is moral or not?

In my mind the Initiator of Force or Fraud is always Immoral, and the person using retalitory force is always moral.

Why? because you think so? Who says morality exists at all? If humans are accidents of nature, then we have no more intrinsic value then a dog or a one celled plankton.

"Mostly" implies a majority(which can be 99.999%).

Or 50.001% which would be incorrect.

Individual Rights

All individual rights are supported by the majority of Christian faiths.

Capitalism,

Most American churches agree with the principles of Capitalism.

and Rugged Individualism?

Rugged Individualism is no longer a majority trait of America.

[Trooth]

If humans are accidents of nature, then we have no more intrinsic value then a dog or a one celled plankton.

We view ourselves more important than the plankton. Whilst the plankton's views are not documented on the internet i imagine that as a species they will be view are going as they did our coming, with indifference.

Most American churches agree with the principles of Capitalism.

Do you think this is based on nurture or nature? Scripture or a product of their environment?

[Praxus]

If humans are accidents of nature, then we have no more intrinsic value then a dog or a one celled plankton.

An accident implies that nature is a conscience being that unwillfully made us.

We have the capacity to reason, which puts us above all other forms of life.

Most American churches agree with the principles of Capitalism.

So your saying the Church wants less Government regulation and less taxes, that they want us to live for our own happiness and no one elses?

All individual rights are supported by the majority of Christian faiths.

Are you talking about the majority of the Christian faiths that want a larger welfare state or the ones that want to destroy private property rights?

[Leader]

Originally posted by Praxus
An accident implies that nature is a conscience being that unwillfully made us.

If there is no God humanity is a random event. It has no cause. Thus, is an accident.

We have the capacity to reason, which puts us above all other forms of life.

So, what is so great about reason? It is just another random adaptation. It doesn't bestow intrinsic value.

So your saying the Church wants less Government regulation and less taxes, that they want us to live for our own happiness and no one elses?

Are you talking about the majority of the Christian faiths that want a larger welfare state or the ones that want to destroy private property rights?

Depends on which church you are talking about. The Catholic church is not for Individual rights and Capitalism. Most southern Protestant churches are.

[Leader]

Originally posted by Trooth
We view ourselves more important than the plankton. Whilst the plankton's views are not documented on the internet i imagine that as a species they will be view are going as they did our coming, with indifference.

Which is completely irrelevant if both species were accidents with no intrinsic value.

Do you think this is based on nurture or nature? Scripture or a product of their environment?

They believe what they believe. I'm not an expert on scripture and Theology. So, I can't tell you if there beliefs are religiously founded.

[Praxus]

So, what is so great about reason? It is just another random adaptation. It doesn't bestow intrinsic value.

Reason allows us to better our own lives and pursue our own happiness. It gives us value because man wanting to live says it does.

[Leader]

Originally posted by Praxus
Reason allows us to better our own lives and pursue our own happiness. It gives us value because man wanting to live says it does.

So because I say something has value, it therefore does? The question is not whether we think something has value. It is whether the thing has objective value. Either morality exists or it doesn't, humanity's opinion on the subject is irrelevant.

[Praxus]

So morality only exsists of some invisible creature tells us it does?

How is that any differant then a human saying it is?

[Leader]

Originally posted by Praxus
So morality only exsists of some invisible creature tells us it does?

How is that any differant then a human saying it is?

The problem is that you look at God simply as a being that is more powerful then humans. Like a super human. God is in fact infinitely different then a human. If God created the universe which is really and objectively there, then he can create a morality, which is really and objectively there. Morally is devised from human worth. If we were created by God, we are good and worthy of life because God is the embodiment of goodness and righteousness. (e.i. he made the objectively right decision by creating us.) Therefore, killing a creation of God would be wrong. Thus, morality. If humans are simply random accidents then a human has no intrinsic value, and there is, thus, no morality.

[Trooth]

If a being, ethereal or otherwise, created the universe, they have chosen not to make it clear as to the reason why. This means that the free thought we at least think we have is what is going to guide us through life. This ambiguity as to the purpose, meaning etc of life, and our roles and interactions both with this planet, the other life forms on it, and with each other is, largely, were morality exists.

Morality, being a human construct like most of our perceptions, is therefore "up for grabs". My opinion, flawed though i am sure it is, has always been that my view on what is moral is my view. If i can convince (peacefully) others of my view, or they can convince me of theirs, then we have a collective morality. Often this then forms societal groupings, with people sharing the same moral code.

However, as we all know, humans do not appear to born with a moral compass (the ambiguity bit). We inherit our formative morals from the society in which we grow up in (so, Mum, Dad, enlarged nuclear family, village, town, orphanage, pack of wolves etc). As we develop we might choose to challenge some of those morals or to refine them.

[Leader]

Originally posted by Trooth
If a being, ethereal or otherwise, created the universe, they have chosen not to make it clear as to the reason why. This means that the free thought we at least think we have is what is going to guide us through life. This ambiguity as to the purpose, meaning etc of life, and our roles and interactions both with this planet, the other life forms on it, and with each other is, largely, were morality exists.

Morality, being a human construct like most of our perceptions, is therefore "up for grabs". My opinion, flawed though i am sure it is, has always been that my view on what is moral is my view. If i can convince (peacefully) others of my view, or they can convince me of theirs, then we have a collective morality. Often this then forms societal groupings, with people sharing the same moral code.

However, as we all know, humans do not appear to born with a moral compass (the ambiguity bit). We inherit our formative morals from the society in which we grow up in (so, Mum, Dad, enlarged nuclear family, village, town, orphanage, pack of wolves etc). As we develop we might choose to challenge some of those morals or to refine them.

Morality is objective. Something is either right or it is wrong. Regardless of you opinion on whether or not mass murder is wrong, it is in fact wrong. Either morality was set out at the beginning of the universe, and is therefore an objective reality or it was set out by humans and therefore is subjective. If it is subjective then it is meaningless because each human can create his own morality and claim, rightfully, that he is right. If God set out morality, on the other hand, then God's morality is the right morality. Your morality either agrees with that and is right or disagrees and is wrong.

[Trooth]

Morality is still a human construct. Even using emotive and extreme examples such as "mass murder" is pointless without context. Wars often involve mass murder, but most people would argue that it is possible for war to be morally correct. Therefore, without context, explanation or otherwise, mass murder can be right. Even though by your example it would be wrong.

I can believe whatever i want and it can seem right to me and me alone when i sit, alone, in a chair, in a room and impact no one. When, however i decide to take my "right" morallity outside and influence other things (living or otherwise) with it that it gets tested It is then tested by people who equally believe themselves to be right. Civilised societies are, hopefully, made up of a concensus of morallity.