Questions for atheists

[BlackSheep]

Are regulations not law in your world? What do you think regulators do if not make law?

My understanding is they work within a legal framework that was legislated.

Colchicine used to be affordable. What law did Congress pass to change that? NOT Congress. Regulators. Were your representatives voting on this atrocity that has friends known to me screaming from the pain of gout where previously their condition was cheaply controlled? Colchicine price increase: how drug companies are taking advantage of the FDA's Unapproved Drugs Initiative. - Slate Magazine

I am sorry for your situation, but I fail to see what it has to do with Liberals or churches inability to help people.

Very naïve impression.

I don't think I am naïve.

[minorwork]

I don't think I am naïve.

Your impression that laws are not made by regulators was naïve, not you. Do you need more examples to relieve you of the impression that regulators don't make law? Recall hearing somebody say, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."???

Bureaucrats make laws that bar a buildings owner from freely opening a building to the homeless. Do you think your representatives considered the requirements of Section 8 housing? Section 8 requirements were formed by bureaucrats and NOT voted on by your representatives.

You objected to finder's defense of spinel's ridiculous blanket accusation about the religious at post #64 at this thread on some nonsensical ground that bureaucrats don't make law. Do you agree with spinel here about the religious' condition?

"They don't care if the poor die if they don't have insurance.

They don't mind that children die without health care.

They see nothing wrong in homeless in this nation and don't open their churches for them to have a place to sleep at night." ~ spinel

[Whiskey1428]

By: Night
So, group selection causes "selfish" genes to be weeded out of the group, and "empathy" genes to become dominant in the group.

Seems very plausible, but again my point was missed entirely. Where did this "group" come from?

Josh

[Whiskey1428]

I am only receiving counter-arguments from the perspective that some sort of society is already in existence. The point I am trying to argue is you would never reach that point of society without pre-existing morals.

Josh

[Jack]

The point I am trying to argue is you would never reach that point of society without pre-existing morals.

As far as I know humans have always been social animals. I'm not aware of any time in human history during which humans lived in complete isolation from one another. Early on we lived in tribes or clans. For any grouping of humans to coexist peacefully and act in such a way as to be a benefit to the group there must have been some agreed upon standards of conduct, certain practices that were allowed and others that were not. Eventually these rules of how to get along were codified into a moral code. Though most moral codes would have been unique to each clan or tribe there were probably a few prohibitions that were common to many of them. Killing other members of the group or stealing from them had serious ramifications on the cohesiveness of the group and no doubt would have been viewed as detrimental and thus unacceptable. On the other hand coveting another's wife would have been unacceptable to groups that practiced monogamy but not for groups that practiced polygamy. Harming children may have been generally unacceptable but there were cultures that sacrificed children to the gods in hopes of pleasing them and getting the gods to grant favorable weather or crops.

I don't see any reason to conclude that morality is anything but a social contrivance to assure harmony among each society's members, no matter how ancient or small the social unit.

[finder]

I suggest the ideology that doesn't say I am sure I am right. The one that encourages questions about itself and understanding of others.

Ironically Christianity does just that!

[finder]

To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view. It is a verb not a noun. It is an action not a result.

Technically it's a transitive verb: <indoctrinated children in proper safety procedures> Indoctrinate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

[BlackSheep]

Your impression that laws are not made by regulators was naïve, not you.

Again they work within the legislative framework that was put in place by the legislation.

Do you need more examples to relieve you of the impression that regulators don't make law? Recall hearing somebody say, "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."???

Yes more examples please with support.

Bureaucrats make laws that bar a buildings owner from freely opening a building to the homeless. Do you think your representatives considered the requirements of Section 8 housing? Section 8 requirements were formed by bureaucrats and NOT voted on by your representatives.

You are speaking of The Housing Act of 1937. Again people working within the framework legislated.

You objected to finder's defense of spinel's ridiculous blanket accusation about the religious at post #64 at this thread on some nonsensical ground that bureaucrats don't make law. Do you agree with spinel here about the religious' condition?

I think I understand what he was saying, but I think it was less clear than it could have been. The same people who claim to be for religion also seek to avoid universal health care.

[BlackSheep]

Technically it's a transitive verb: <indoctrinated children in proper safety procedures> Indoctrinate - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It is indeed, bit that is still a verb. It requires an object.
Not sure why you chose to make this point. It adds nothing to the debate.

[BlackSheep]

Ironically Christianity does just that!

By that do you mean "I am sure I am right" or "encourages questions about itself and understanding of others"?

In my experience the general thrust of Christianity (in this regard) is that is s right and that it dislikes people doubting its dogma. While as of late they have come to be more accepting of others they still don't endorse questioning of the essential truths of their faith.

[BlackSheep]

I am only receiving counter-arguments from the perspective that some sort of society is already in existence. The point I am trying to argue is you would never reach that point of society without pre-existing morals.

To a degree this becomes a chicken and egg question. We need to broaden this to understand it. Humans are animals and animals have instincts. Even non-social animals tend to have instincts that avoid extremely destructive behaviors within the species. As species move towards being social these instincts change. In fact it is these instincts that make them social. The need to be with others, to be loved etc. At the simplest level these are our morals. Now humans are more sophisticated in this regard than most if not all animals and we rely less on instincts and more on learned behaviors, bit it is these base instincts that form the earliest human societies.

[grandpa]

To a degree this becomes a chicken and egg question.
We need to broaden this to understand it.

I can't help but see aggressiveness and conservatism connected. Without naming a specific society, I think people aggressively defend tradition (what is comfortable and "normal") for fear and/or hatred of the unknown.

Grandpa h.