Comments by "Frenchie’s Philosophy" (@tsuich00i) on "Religion and the Constitution [FULL] | Andrew Seidel | LAW | Rubin Report" video.

  1. +Lam Phum 1. It would not "obviously encourage segregation", unless you have something against the Freedom of Association. 2. Given you're moral objections to discrimination thus far, why worry about the harm to bigots in business? 3. This isn't a question of discriminated based upon who you are, but what you can be compelled to do. As I understand the Baker's case, had they, the buyers, simply chosen a generic cake (any "non-gay" cake) out of the catalog, the proprietors would have accepted without protest. Custom cake-baking however, is a creative act that would force the business owners to involve themselves personally in the making of something which would represent and endorse views they disagree with. The objection is to the product not the person; a product they are under no obligation to produce, and if they were, then all opinion and free thought is subject to government review should it offend a member of the public. You are comparing ascribed status to forced labor; the 13th amendment came about to defend the former (African Americans) from the latter (slavery) and while you cannot deny service on the basis of race, neither can you be required to perform services and produce goods you don't wish to. Both are protected and not to be confused as they have been by morons like the one interviewed here.
    6
  2. Where is the evidence for morality, or beauty, or free will, or for the ultimate origins of existence? And yet through experience and in exchange with others, we reason these things to be, and even when we doubt them, we act as though they hold true for practical purposes. So on the contrary, these beliefs come naturally and even with logical neccessity (you need an notion of The Good to judge the wrongfulness or rightness of acts in law, taste to choose the best of life, a presumption of violation in order to recognize the humanity in others, and a concept of first cause to make sense of reality)
    3
  3. The fairies example is a fallacious one; there is no existential need of fairies (they don't explain anything not already explained by the sciences). Or Santa Claus for that matter; Santa Claus isn't believable because we learn later in life that the cause of presents is our parents, which is something we can test against the "North Pole Delivery Service Hypothesis" On the other hand, how and why the the universe is meaningfully structured lacks a scientific answers, and so one is left with a theory of a supreme intelligence, unless you have something better.
    3
  4. How can someone share a view with someone else if morality is subjective? (hint: because it isn't) Exactly, and what (physical) proof do you have regarding Free Will? (hence the God analogy) Long story short, there isn't any. However, it is better to treat one another as though we act from a place of self-determination, rather than do away with all notion of choice and therefore responsibility, which would basically destroy all social life...
    3
  5. they are like-phenomena; things known to us by others means.
    2
  6. if morality is subjective, it is irrelevant. Social construction is a nonsense position; man appreciates things differently, i.e has preferences, this alone suggests that the existence of a standard which is not "built" but is "built-in". "we have crime for a reason" What does that have to do with free will? Would we not have crime if there was no free will?
    2
  7. And what are they constructed from?...
    2
  8. I think your stretching the definition of "fairiess" ( tiny, winged, woodland creatures) beyond imagining, but that is beside the point: At no point in my argument did I claim to know the character of god, or what exactly a god is, other than intelligent enough to have created a finely-tuned system such as the universe we find ourselves in. I am only saying a simple conception of a god is theoretically tenable--what people and cultures choose to do with that idea is another thing entirely.
    2
  9. Your first critique is not a critique but a silly question that you suggest an even sillier answer to. Language allows for a near-infinite variation of possible answers to the question of say, the value of human life. The chances that two people would think of the same answer to that question separately is close to zero. The second point just begs the question: "written on what basis?" if it's just made up, then how is it that murder is prohibited by virtually every society? The answer is moral sense, whose nature, biological or celestial, (perhaps both) is objective. It amazes me how the atheist can defend his doubts in the name of rationality, while at the same time, deny every human experience and intuition (morality, beauty, free will, etc) as "subjective" to avoid all argument, which as a result casts all discourse in dustbin.
    2
  10. The idea of God is of a transcendental, not imminent (though some will defend the latter position) and so one should not expect to find signs of thing that exists beyond and outside this, the physical domain. If you think that what is, came out of nothing (a nonsense position) you are welcome to embrace that view, but don't then claim to have arrived at this conclusion because of superior rational understanding of reality.
    2
  11. What precludes the possibility of God? How would we have evidence? Do you now have physical evidence of your birth? Of course not, nor could you have evidence of something before the big bang and yet something must have precipitated it. Evolution is perfectly compatible with religion, I fail to see the issue or the contradiction. Infinite density, not mass (that would be against the conservation of energy) not sure why this is relevant though. Now if the universe were somehow eternal,that might undermine religion, but the best physics to date does precisely the opposite.
    2