Wanna start a list of the unjust laws you're gonna recommend we start breaking ?

It's gonna be a long one.

Even the venerable Dr. King pick and chose.
Did that make him immoral?
A hypocrit ?

Stands to reason.

Negative. It includes both as it includes the practice of no religion. they are intertwined inseparably.

Everyone else, Cash.
(funny. That's written ON cash.)

You pick your own battles.  Unjust laws don't always affect the majority.  In fact, it's the minority who need to fight against the unjust laws levied upon them by the majority.

When the state passes a law that affects YOU is when you have to decide on the best way to fight it.  Sometimes disobedience is the first step to bringing your grievance to the public's attention.

No our constitution says so.  We are a secular state.  If we abandon that what stops the Muslims saying sharia law has to be followed?

A pure secular state is impossible. As a democracy we vote on leaders and therefore on laws. You cannot stop someone from voting based on their moral beliefs. Furthermore, you have values that are shared by both the religious and secularists. Murder is wrong is a religious value, would you remove it from law because the government cannot have religious influences?

As for the Jefferson quote, I am not an English scholar but the way I read the statement is that the government is not to interfere in religion. It cannot establish a religion or control it. I don't see it as meaning that religion cannot influence government.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Jerfferson

A pure secular state is impossible. As a democracy we vote on leaders and therefore on laws. You cannot stop someone from voting based on their moral beliefs. Furthermore, you have values that are shared by both the religious and secularists. Murder is wrong is a religious value, would you remove it from law because the government cannot have religious influences?

As for the Jefferson quote, I am not an English scholar but the way I read the statement is that the government is not to interfere in religion. It cannot establish a religion or control it. I don't see it as meaning that religion cannot influence government.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Jerfferson

Somebody pinch me!  I must be hallucinating!   

    I agree   

(I hope you appreciate the amount of effort it took to post this)   

Somebody pinch me!  I must be hallucinating!   

    I agree   

(I hope you appreciate the amount of effort it took to post this)

Great minds think alike. So do crazy ones apparently.

A pure secular state is impossible. As a democracy we vote on leaders and therefore on laws. You cannot stop someone from voting based on their moral beliefs. Furthermore, you have values that are shared by both the religious and secularists. Murder is wrong is a religious value, would you remove it from law because the government cannot have religious influences?

As for the Jefferson quote, I am not an English scholar but the way I read the statement is that the government is not to interfere in religion. It cannot establish a religion or control it. I don't see it as meaning that religion cannot influence government.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
- Jerfferson

The problem is we need to seek perfection while I do agree with you right now pure secular state is an impossible dream its something we need to work towards.  The value of murder is wrong is a shared value thus is fine.  Its when its only a value of religion does it tend to be wrong.  For example a secular society might view flogging people for being gay to be wrong, but a religion like Islam views it to be correct.  In this case the secular society would trump the religion.  What we need is impartial AI (robots) that rule based on science and facts and not emotions.

The problem is we need to seek perfection while I do agree with you right now pure secular state is an impossible dream its something we need to work towards.  The value of murder is wrong is a shared value thus is fine.  Its when its only a value of religion does it tend to be wrong.  For example a secular society might view flogging people for being gay to be wrong, but a religion like Islam views it to be correct.  In this case the secular society would trump the religion.  What we need is impartial AI (robots) that rule based on science and facts and not emotions.

I know I'm going to regret jumping in here.  But here goes. . .

Are you saying that morality is dependent upon religion?  Or more specifically, definition of morality being based on religion? 

I know I'm going to regret jumping in here.  But here goes. . .

Are you saying that morality is dependent upon religion?  Or more specifically, definition of morality being based on religion?

No morality can be defined on whats best for a society or its people.  You don't need religion to have morality.  Murder is bad for a society and for its people thus it can be banned.  You can be moral and be an atheist.  As an society right now though there are ties with morality and religion I am not refuting that.  What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't have to be tied together.

No morality can be defined on whats best for a society or its people.  You don't need religion to have morality.  Murder is bad for a society and for its people thus it can be banned.  You can be moral and be an atheist.  As an society right now though there are ties with morality and religion I am not refuting that.  What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't have to be tied together.

Got it.  I was keying on "Its when its only a value of religion does it tend to be wrong". 

The problem is we need to seek perfection while I do agree with you right now pure secular state is an impossible dream its something we need to work towards.  The value of murder is wrong is a shared value thus is fine.  Its when its only a value of religion does it tend to be wrong.  For example a secular society might view flogging people for being gay to be wrong, but a religion like Islam views it to be correct.  In this case the secular society would trump the religion.  What we need is impartial AI (robots) that rule based on science and facts and not emotions.

Secularism combined with moral relativism throws a wrench in your plan. As long as secularism considers it a moral then it doesn't matter whether the religion considers it a value? What happens when secularism changes a value?

I don't think AI robot can determine moral values.

No morality can be defined on whats best for a society or its people.  You don't need religion to have morality.  Murder is bad for a society and for its people thus it can be banned.  You can be moral and be an atheist.  As an society right now though there are ties with morality and religion I am not refuting that.  What I'm trying to say is that it doesn't have to be tied together

Do you realize how problematic that definition is? "What is best for society." Good luck on getting people to agree on that.

Someone here thinks the Blue Pill is the right answer for everyone.... A perfect existence created by a computer to control us all.

Someone here thinks the Blue Pill is the right answer for everyone.... A perfect existence created by a computer to control us all.

Embrace the inevitability, Mr. Anderson...

Secularism combined with moral relativism throws a wrench in your plan. As long as secularism considers it a moral then it doesn't matter whether the religion considers it a value? What happens when secularism changes a value?

I don't think AI robot can determine moral values.

Do you realize how problematic that definition is? "What is best for society." Good luck on getting people to agree on that.

If secularism considers it moral than true, it doesn't matter what religions say.  It only matters the other way around.
There is a reason why having an AI decide is best, it unbiased and with humans help can figure out what is "best for society". 

Someone here thinks the Blue Pill is the right answer for everyone.... A perfect existence created by a computer to control us all.

No I'm not advocating pure robot control that limits freedom.  What I want is a mix, where humans bias and emotions that can effect freedom have a robot make decisions.  This robot will rule in the most fair freedom giving way.  In many cases of law, corruption, projects an unbiased robot would make the best decisions.  It isn't political or corruptible.  Look at our rail, imagine if it was run by something not bought out by the construction companies?   Imagine if it wasn't influenced by the unions and other powers to be?

If secularism considers it moral than true, it doesn't matter what religions say.  It only matters the other way around.
There is a reason why having an AI decide is best, it unbiased and with humans help can figure out what is "best for society". 

No I'm not advocating pure robot control that limits freedom.  What I want is a mix, where humans bias and emotions that can effect freedom have a robot make decisions.  This robot will rule in the most fair freedom giving way.  In many cases of law, corruption, projects an unbiased robot would make the best decisions.  It isn't political or corruptible.  Look at our rail, imagine if it was run by something not bought out by the construction companies?   Imagine if it wasn't influenced by the unions and other powers to be?

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL

Computers deciding what's best for humans? 

What could possibly go wrong?

If secularism considers it moral than true, it doesn't matter what religions say.  It only matters the other way around.
There is a reason why having an AI decide is best, it unbiased and with humans help can figure out what is "best for society". 

No I'm not advocating pure robot control that limits freedom.  What I want is a mix, where humans bias and emotions that can effect freedom have a robot make decisions.  This robot will rule in the most fair freedom giving way.  In many cases of law, corruption, projects an unbiased robot would make the best decisions.  It isn't political or corruptible.  Look at our rail, imagine if it was run by something not bought out by the construction companies?   Imagine if it wasn't influenced by the unions and other powers to be?

So you're assuming that AI would somehow evolve to be completely independent and uninfluenced by the people (and their values) who programmed the pre-AI machines. Using your prescient insight, tell us how the AI will decide the question of terminating (or not) pregnancy, considering what is "best for society" and "the most fair freedom". Please be specific. Or do you claim that you don't, and maybe can't, know the answer to that, but you have "faith" that AI will infallibly determine a "right" answer? And if so, that you would unquestionably abide by whatever decisions and orders would be issued by the AI, including the fate of your family (perhaps your children would be selected as part of a depopulation program as "best for society"). Etc. Etc. Etc.

"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dave? Dave's not here, man!!!

Dave? Dave's not here, man!!!

He's on the other side of pod bay doors.

He's on the other side of pod bay doors.

He's been sniffing pure oxygen again. I think he has burned out too many brain cells.